Sometimes The Wheels Of Justice Turn Very Slowly

Scott Johnson at Power Line blog posted a story today about an investigation into the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a political tool that had been held up, but will now be moving forward.

The article reports:

The pro-Israel group Z Street had its application for tax-exempt status held up at the IRS. When founder Lori Lowenthal Marcus asked why, she was told that IRS auditors had been instructed to give pro-Israel groups special attention and that Z Street’s application had been forwarded to a special IRS unit for additional review. Not to put too fine a point on the legal issues, this isn’t kosher. It’s illegal.

Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in the rosy dawn of the Age of Obama; the lawsuit has failed to get beyond the IRS’s motion for dismissal. The Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman wrote about the lawsuit here last year when the DC District Court denied the IRS motion to dismiss the case. Z Street’s Lori Marcus wrote about it here. John wrote about it in 2013 in the post “The other IRS scandal.”

The DC Circuit Court handed down its decision today. The case will move forward–the IRS motion was denied. The decision is posted here.

The article at Power Line includes the following statement by Z Street:

Z STREET looks forward to the discovery phase of litigation in which it will seek to learn the nature and origin of the “Israel Special Policy” which the IRS applied to Z STREET’s tax exemption application. Z STREET will seek to learn how such a policy was created, who created it, who approved it, to whom it was applied, as well as all other information regarding this policy.

A series of IRS documents called “Be On the LookOut” lists, which were released by Congress in June, 2013, pursuant to the TIGTA investigation, have already established that, as Z STREET alleges, while Z STREET’s application for tax exempt status was pending, the IRS did indeed create a special category of review for organizations seeking such status, if they were engaged in what the IRS called “occupied territory advocacy.”

Z STREET looks forward to using the discovery process to learn more about the precise nature, origin and effect of this policy, which the DC Circuit has now made clear is a violation of essential Constitutional rights.

Under the Obama Administration, the federal government has been staffed with bullies. Unless we learn how to stand up to these bullies and get them under control, we will lose the freedoms that we have taken for granted.

The Truth About The Obama Administration And Israel

The Washington Free Beacon posted a story today about former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren‘s new book, “Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israel Divide.”

The article states:

By the summer of 2013, President Obama had convinced several key Israelis that he wasn’t bluffing about using force against the Iranian nuclear program. Then he failed to enforce his red line against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad—and the Israelis realized they’d been snookered. Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, recalls the shock inside his government. “Everyone went quiet,” he said in a recent interview. “An eerie quiet. Everyone understood that that was not an option, that we’re on our own.”

That is one of the saddest statements I have ever read.

The article explains the impact of Israel’s loss of United States’ support in the international community:

What Obama wanted was to create diplomatic space between America and Israel while maintaining our military alliance. Oren says military-to-military relations are strong, but the diplomatic fissure has degraded Israel’s security. America, he says, provided a “Diplomatic Iron Dome” that shielded Israel from anti-Semites in Europe, at the U.N., and abroad whose goal is to delegitimize the Jewish State and undermine her economically.

This rhetorical missile shield is slowly being retracted. The administration threatens not to veto anti-Israel U.N. initiatives, Europe is aligning with the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, and anti-Israel activism festers on U.S. campuses. Obama’s unending criticism of Israel, and background quotes calling Israel’s prime minister a “chicken-shit” and a “coward,” provide an opening for radicals to go even further.

Israel has been our only reliable ally in the Middle East since its founding in 1948. It is the only country in the Middle East where Christians, Jews, and Muslims are free to practice their religion. The Obama Administration has consistently come down on the wrong side of history in its dealings in the Middle East. Abandoning Israel in favor of a nuclear agreement with Iran would be a serious mistake. Unfortunately, that seems to be the path President Obama has chosen.

What It Means To Invest In A Town

I love what Jeff Kinney (author of the Wimpy Kid books) is doing for Plainville, Massachusetts. He has removed an eyesore from the center of town and replaced it with a wonderful bookstore, but he hasn’t stopped there.

The Attleboro Sun Chronicle posted a story today about his latest contribution to the town.

The article reports:

The Kinneys were at a book conference in Los Angeles, where Julie Kinney found a booth staffed by Write Brain Books publishing company.

The firm publishes children’s book with illustrations, but no text. Children are expected to write their own stories to go with the drawings.

Julie Kinney brought four of the books to Wood School in Plainville, where fourth-grade teacher Devon Almeida turned them into a major project for her students.

Now, their versions of the books have been published and are going on sale at An Unlikely Story bookstore in Plainville, which is owed by Jeff Kinney.

The children presented their stories to parents Wednesday at the school. Write Brain founder and CEO Meredith Scott Lynn flew in from California for the occasion.

I love the fact that the books the students wrote will be sold at An Unlikely Story bookstore. Thank you, Jeff Kinney, for all you are doing for Plainville.

 

Another Obama Lie

The shooting in Charleston last night was tragic. An obviously disturbed person sat through part of a prayer meeting in a black church and then opened fire. That is a tragedy. Unfortunately President Obama has already decided to make the tragedy into an issue about gun control. Has it occurred to him that if anyone in the church other than the gunman had been armed, a lot fewer people would have been killed?

The Washington Examiner quoted the President’s statement today:

“Now is the time for mourning and healing, but to be clear, some at time we have to reckon as a country that this type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other countries…,” he said. “It doesn’t happen with this type of frequency in other countries…and it’s within our power to do something about it.”

With all due respect, Mr. President, guns are not the problem. This type of violence does happen in other countries. In February 2010, I posted an article about a violence problem in the United Kingdom. Guns are not allowed in the United Kingdom–their violence problem was related to beer glasses in pubs.

The article explained the British response to broken pint glass attacks:

“According to British Home Secretary Alan Johnson, there are about 87,000 of these (glass) attacks every year, some very serious. We even read a story about a bloodbath in a London bar in which 50 pint glasses were smashed in a minute and one person’s eye popped out. Sounds more like a horror movie than a night out at the pub.”

As a result of this problem, neither pubs nor ale glasses were outlawed or controlled. The glasses were redesigned so that they were harder to break and use as weapons, but it is still possible to hit someone on the head with one.

The point is this–the violence is the problem–not the weapon. Until we begin to teach  all Americans respect for all life–from the womb to the grave, violence will continue to be a problem

 

Libya Does Matter

Erick Stakelbeck posted a story on his blog entitled, “Why You Should Care About Libya.” I will admit that I never understood the need to remove Muammar Gaddafi after he began cooperating with the west in the War on Terror. If you remember, as a result of the American invasion of Iraq, in December 2003, Libya renounced its possession of weapons of mass destruction, decommissioning its chemical and nuclear weapons programs. At that point Libya’s relationship with the United States improved and seemed to be moving in a positive direction. Admittedly, his civil rights record was questionable at best, but it was no worse than any government that has followed him.

So why should I care about Libya?

The article explains:

While the West’s attention is focused on ISIS’s rampage through Iraq and Syria, Libya is fast becoming one of the world’s most dangerous and unstable countries–a hotbed of ISIS and Al Qaeda activity and ravaged by civil war. ISIS now wields a major presence in the Libyan cities of Sirte (where it recently seized a civilian airport) and Derna (where it has been battling other jihadist groups for supremacy) along the Mediterranean coast and is making further moves elsewhere in the country.

ISIS has also wasted no time extending its genocide against the Christians of Iraq and Syria to the shores of North Africa. In February, ISIS released a horrific video showing its jihadists beheading 21 Egyptian Christians on a Libyan beach. It issued a similar video in April showing the beheading and shooting of over a dozen Ethiopian Christians in Libya. And just last week, ISIS reportedly kidnapped 88 more Christians–this time, Eritreans–who were refugees traveling through Libya. These Eritrean Christians’ outlook for survival is obviously grim.

So why should you care about ISIS’s advances in Libya? For starters, Libya is rapidly becoming a terrorist safe haven–the kind of place where jihadists can train freely and plot attacks against the United States (see: pre-9/11 Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the ISIS-held territories of Iraq and Syria). That’s bad enough. Worse still is Libya’s geographic proximity to Europe–it lies just 600 miles across the Mediterranean from Italy. And according to a recent Fox News report, ISIS is wasting no time using its Libya strongholds to transit into Europe:

“Refugees” have been pouring into Europe from Libya. In recent weeks, the Italians have picked up at least thirty ISIS fighters who have come into Italy from Libya. This is a threat to Europe and eventually to America.

So what was the regime change in Libya about? What was the Arab Spring really about? In his book Catastrophic Failure, Stephen Coughlin examines the timeline of the Arab Spring. He cites a Der Spiegel article explaining the goal of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to bring about the collapse of the Arab governments that were not based on Islamic Law. America, unfortunately, came down on the wrong side of history in the Arab Spring and simply strengthened Al Qaeda and helped bring chaos to the Middle East.

The Egyptian government has moved against the Muslim Brotherhood, sentencing many of its members to death, including former President Mohammed Morsi. Again, the civil rights record of the new Egyptian government is not good, but they have restored order and are eliminating the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt. American needs to wake up to the threat the Muslim Brotherhood is to America. I strongly recommend reading “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” by the Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram. This is one of the government exhibits from the Holy Land Foundation Trial. You can find more information at Discover the Networks.

There are many lessons we can learn from Libya and many reasons why Libya matters.

This Is Not Really A Surprise

The hope of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign is that by the time Americans vote, they will be so tired of hearing about Benghazi and Mrs. Clinton’s private email server that they won’t even care. So far that strategy has been somewhat successful, but it’s success may be drawing to a close.

On Monday the Daily Caller posted a story about emails provided to a House Committee by Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton insider.

The article reports:

The new Blumenthal-Clinton correspondence was included in a batch of emails Blumenthal gave in response to a subpoena from the Benghazi committee. He will testify in a closed-door session in front of the panel on Tuesday.

It is unclear exactly why Blumenthal’s emails are only now being provided to the committee, though there are two likely explanations. Either Clinton failed to turn the records over to the State Department in December, or the State Department received the emails from Clinton but for some reason failed to turn them over to the Benghazi committee, which is led by South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy.

This, of course, is contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claim in March that she had turned over all of her emails.

The article further reports:

Clinton said her handlers had sifted through her private email account to find her official emails. She said her personal emails were deleted. A private email server Clinton used to host the email account has also reportedly been wiped clean.

The rest of Clinton’s emails will be released in increments beginning at the end of the month.

This does matter. However, it will probably not matter to Mrs. Clinton’s supporters. I believe that there is no level of dishonesty that Mrs. Clinton could be guilty of that would derail her presidential campaign. That really does not say good things about the American voter.

 

Desperation Is Never A Good Thing In Negotiations

On Monday, the Center for Security Policy posted an article about the ongoing negotiations with Iran over Iran’s nuclear policy. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released a report on June 11 on the status of the negotiations.

The article reports:

The deadlock stems from Tehran’s refusal to permit inspections of military facilities or answer questions about past nuclear-weapons-related work (known as “possible military dimensions” or PMD in U.N.-speak). With the clock ticking down on a June 30 deadline for a nuclear agreement, the refusal of Iranian leaders to budge on these issues has become a political problem for President Obama, who said in April that Iran has agreed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has said the nuclear agreement will allow “anytime, anywhere inspections of any and every Iranian facility.”

Unfortunately, Iran has not been willing to agree to those inspections. In desperation, the Obama Administration has begun making concessions.

The article reports some of those concessions:

• The United States has proposed to close the International Atomic Energy Agency’s PMD dossier and forgo actual IAEA inspections of suspect Iranian nuclear facilities.

• Instead, the IAEA would conduct token inspections of a handful of nuclear sites — including two military sites — and question several senior Iranian military officials.

• Inspections of Iranian nuclear sites after the token inspections would be limited to declared facilities.

• Undeclared and suspect nuclear-weapons sites would be monitored through intelligence means.

MEMRI, a well-regarded think tank in Washington, D.C., sourced its report to statements cited in the Iranian press from Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and head nuclear negotiator, and Hamid Baidinejad, another Iranian nuclear negotiator. Araghchi reportedly said the Iranian negotiating team agreed to the proposed U.S. concession, but the plan was subsequently rejected by Supreme Leader Khamenei and triggered harsh criticism of Iranian officials in the so-called pragmatic camp. Baidinejad claimed the Iranian negotiating team rejected the proposed U.S. concession but agreed to an American request to present it to Khamenei anyway, who rejected it outright.

Somewhere in this charade, we need to remember that Iran is neither our friend or an honest negotiator. Iranian weapons have been killing our soldiers in the Middle East since 2001. Why in the world should we believe that they are at all interested in bringing peace to the region? We need to increase the sanctions on Iran until they stop exporting terrorism around the world.

The New Head Of The Republican Party In North Carolina

At the recent North Carolina Republican Convention, Hasan Harnett was elected Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party. This was not the choice of the establishment Republicans, but it was a really good choice. My husband and I met Mr. Harnett at the Convention and were very impressed. Aside from being a man of many accomplishments, he is a man who knows how to think outside the box. His entrance into the Convention to make his campaign speech was an indication of that–he was proceeded by a group of drummers that energized the Convention.

The Charlotte Observer posted a story about Mr. Harnett on Friday.

The story included the following:

Harnett gravitated to politics after meeting the late Tim Johnson, a GOP activist who founded the Frederick Douglass Foundation, which bills itself as “the largest Christ-Centered, Multi-Ethnic and Republican ministry in America.”

“Harnett was always a conservative, but he kind of got woken up to the fact that the Republican Party (was) closest to his values by Tim Johnson,” said Daniel Rufty, the GOP’s 12th District chairman.

Harnett was a Democrat when he voted in the 2008 presidential primary. He said he bypassed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and wrote in Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican.

He switched parties in 2010, according to election records. That’s when he helped the campaign of Christopher Hailey, a black Republican running for Mecklenburg sheriff.

“Whenever I needed help, he was there,” recalled Hailey.

After that campaign, Harnett began working on the state party’s efforts to recruit more minorities. At the same time, he was learning more about politics. In 2011, he was chosen as a fellow in the N.C. Institute of Political Leadership, which has groomed state political leaders for nearly 30 years.

As a former Democrat, I can totally relate to his journey to the Republican Party. The Democrat Party abandoned its conservatives a long time ago, and the Republican Party was to only place for them to go. Mr. Harnett represents the leadership we need in order to be the Republican Party we were founded to be–smaller government, more economic growth, and policies that enable people to prosper–not just enable them. I am looking forward to the next year with him in charge of the North Carolina Republicans.

Common Core In North Carolina

Yesterday the Academic Standards Review Commission (ASRC) met in Raleigh. Jerry Egolf presented the North Carolina Plan (an alternative to Common Core which is less expensive than Common Core and has its origins in the Greensboro Plan). The North Carolina Plan would bring our schools up to some of the highest standards in the nation–it includes parts of the Greensboro Plan, Massachusetts (before Common Core), Minnesota’s math programs, and California (before Common Core). It would be a wonderful alternative to Common Core.

Lady Liberty posted the following on her blog about the meeting:

Yesterday was the June meeting of the Academic Standards Review Commission (ASRC), which is tasked at reviewing the Common Core standards in order to give replacement recommendations to the State Board of Education at the end of this year.

Local media was on hand for yesterday’s event, as it included public comment from parents. Well, it was supposed to be parents. Near the end, the NC PTA President, Donald Dunn, jumped in.

Dunn’s comments were a series of pro-Core talking points; one in particular on Military families “needing the Common Core” has been thoroughly debunked. Time Warner Cable news covered the introduction of the NC Plan, which is a full set of free standards based on the best of the best state and international standards available. Time Warner Cable new also interviewed NC parent, Amy Wilmoth:

“Amy Wilmoth attended with her son Reeves.

She made the decision in February to pull her 9-year-old son from Mangum Elementary School in favor of a home school online curriculum with Liberty University; however, they remain conflicted.

“We wanna send him back to the public school system. My husband and I both are products of the public school system. But it was a very different environment then. We were able to learn and teachers had the ability to teach the children as they saw fit to teach then, and I see that missing in our school system,” said Wilmoth.”

I attended the event and also spoke as a parent of a Wake county student. Around 15 parents spoke; only three spoke in support of the standards. I’ll have more on this testimony from the supporters once I compile my notes and finish some research on some of the attendees.

I live-tweeted the event, which can be read on Storify.

Actions Have Consequences

The withdrawal of American troops in Iraq paved the way for the ISIS takeover. Last Tuesday BBC News posted an article about what life in Mosul, Iraq, is like under ISIS.

I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article, but here is one example:

“One day I felt so bored at home that I asked my husband to take me out, even if I had to wear the full khimar [a long, cape-like veil that covers the hair, neck and shoulders completely, but leaves the face clear]. I had not left home since IS took over the city. As I was preparing, he told me I would be forced to put on a niqab [veil for the face]. I was shocked at this and considered staying at home for a moment, but eventually I relented.

We went to a nice restaurant by the river we used to frequent during our engagement. As soon as we sat down, my husband told me that I could finally reveal my face as there was no IS presence and the restaurant was a place for families.

“I was very happy to oblige and so I revealed my face with a large smile. Instantly, the restaurant’s owner came over begging my husband to ask me to hide it again because Islamic State fighters made surprise inspection visits and he would be flogged if they saw me like that.

The article continues:

“I was threatened and harassed [by Sunni extremists] before the capture of Mosul, but I kept on delivering babies for women from all religions and sects. I never differentiate between my patients as I believe everyone deserves equal care.

“However, I had to flee as Mosul fell. I escaped with my body unharmed, but my soul remained where I had left it: at home with my books.

“After moving to Irbil [in Iraq’s Kurdistan region] I received shocking news: Islamic State had confiscated my house and marked it with the letter ‘N’ [for Nasrani – a word used by IS to refer to Christians]. I immediately telephoned my friends in Mosul and begged them to save my books.

“But it was too late. They called back saying my library had been emptied onto the street. However, some of my neighbours were able to rescue some precious books that remain hidden.”

Another story:

Fouad: “I was arrested by IS. They came to our family home looking for my brother. When they couldn’t find him, they decided to take me to prison instead.

“Then they tortured me. The guy who did it wouldn’t stop unless he got tired. He was edgy all the time and he wouldn’t listen to what his prisoners said. He flogged me with a power cable and also tortured me psychologically.

“When my brother handed himself in, they found out that the accusations against him were false but they still kept me in prison until they judged me well enough to leave.

“They had hit me so hard with the cable that the marks are still visible on my back.”

Daily life in Mosul:

“IS takes a quarter of everyone’s salary as a contribution towards paying for rebuilding the city. People can’t say no because they would face harsh punishments. The group controls everything. Rent is paid to it and the hospitals are for its members’ exclusive use.

“The group has even replaced the imams in the mosques with pro-IS people. Many of us have stopped going to the mosques because those attending are asked to give an oath of allegiance and we hate that.

“Meanwhile, my brother was given 20 lashes just because he didn’t shut his shop during prayer time – as if you can just impose religion by force!”

I don’t have an answer–I don’t want American troops there–this is a civil war and we need to stay out of it. However, the rise of ISIS is the result of letting Prime Minister Maliki purge the Iraqi government and army of Sunni Muslims. When President Obama allowed him to do this, we paved the way for what is happening now. The possible answer is to arm the Kurds directly–not go through Baghdad. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq suffer.

H.R. 1205

On March 2, H.R. 1205 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. So what is H.R. 1205?

According to Thomas.gov:

American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

Directs the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body.

Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

Passage of this bill, sponsored by Representative Mike Rogers and co-sponsored by Representatives Thomas Massie, John Duncan, Lynn Westmoreland, and Tim Huelskamp. would be a good thing for all Americans.

This is a statement from Representative Mike Rogers about the bill:

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)—Across East Alabama, many of you may agree with me that the United States’ participation with the United Nations (U.N.) should end immediately.

The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars.

Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens.

To name a few, these initiatives  include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.

The U.N. has also offered a potential Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten our Second Amendment rights and impose regulations on our gun manufacturers, who are already facing regulations and pressure from the Obama Administration.

Lastly, the U.N. does not support Israel and voted to grant the Palestinian Authority “non-member state” permanent observer status.  

Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel, is not a friend to the United States.

Because of these actions among others, I introduced H.R. 1205, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015.

My legislation would end our country’s participation in the U.N. and any organizations affiliated with them.

Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world? The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.

We need to elect enough Congressmen who agree with the above statement to get H.R. 2015 passed in both the House and the Senate. The United Nations has been working against freedom and against the interests of freedom for a number of years. If another country wants to support them, that’s fine, but we don’t have to support them or be a member of a group that is against the principle of freedom.

 

 

Huh?

I feel obligated to write about this story because it has been all over the news lately, but to be honest, I really don’t understand it.

CBS News in Seattle, Washington, is reporting that Rachel Dolezal is resigning as the leader of the NAACP in Spokane after it was discovered that she had lied about her racial heritage for the past 37 years.

The article reports:

Meanwhile, Spokane is investigating whether she lied about her ethnicity when she landed an appointment to the city’s police oversight board. On her application, she said her ethnic origins included white, black and American Indian.

Dolezal, a 37-year-old woman with a light brown complexion and dark curly hair, attended historically black Howard University, teaches African studies at a local university and was married to a black man. For years, she has publicly complained of being the victim of racial harassment in the heavily white region.

The uproar over racial authenticity and professional honesty unfolded last week after Dolezal’s parents told the media their daughter is white with a trace of Native American heritage. They produced photos of her as girl with a pale complexion and straight blond hair.

Her mother, Ruthanne Dolezal of Troy, Montana, told reporters she has had no contact with her daughter in years. She said Rachel began to “disguise herself” after her parents adopted four African-American children more than a decade ago.

Although I do not think it was right for her to lie about her background, I really don’t understand the issue. She wanted to work for civil rights. She obviously felt that she could do a better job of that as a member of the minority she was interested in helping. I have a problem with her lying, I don’t have a problem with her working for the NAACP. I do, however, wonder if she would have been elected to head the local NAACP chapter if she had been white. That is what we should be thinking about. Do you have to be the same race as another person to understand the struggles of that race and to want to help? Maybe we all need to look at the unintentional segregation we put on ourselves and instead start thinking about which people want to make things better, not who is what color.

Don’t Let Science Get In The Way Of Your Agenda

The Church and science have been at odds in the past, but I really thought that times had changed. Well, I guess they haven’t. This article is based on two sources, one is an article posted at the Daily Caller today and the other was posted at the U.K. Independent today.

The article at the Daily Caller states that the data from the climate stations in the United States reveals that we have been in a ten-year cooling period. (There are people in the midwest and New England who would most definitely agree with that statement). NOAA has adjusted those numbers to make it appear that there has been no cooling period.

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

NOAA’s latest temperature update did not include USCRN (U.S. Surface Climate Observing Reference Networks) data. One reason for this may be that the USCRN stations only have about a decade of data on them, which could be considered too short of a time period to use them in their analysis.

It should also be noted that USCRN only covers the U.S., including Hawaii and Alaska, but the rest of the world lacks these high quality weather stations that don’t require temperatures to go through ex post facto adjustments by NOAA.

Skeptics, however, argue that USCRN data could deflate future arguments of rapid warming made by NOAA and others.

“So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?” Watts (Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and publisher of the science blog Watts Up With That) asked.

“While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual ‘State of the Climate’ reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the [National Climatic Data Center] website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted,” Watts added. “We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.”

The bottom line here is that if you don’t manipulate the data, the areas of earth where we can get accurate temperature measurements have been cooling for the past ten years.

The article at the U.K. Independent dealt with the content of an upcoming Papal speech detailing the dire threat of climate change. I am truly surprised that the Pope has waded into the middle of this discussion.

The article at the U.K. Independent states:

Pope Francis is also extremely concerned about the prospect of mass migration of animals, plants and humans as global warming means they cannot function in their traditional habitat.

He calls for a new global political authority tasked with tackling the reduction of pollution and the development of poor countries and regions.

Although he accepts that there may be some natural causes of global warming, the pope lays most of the blame for climate change squarely at the feet of mankind.

“Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and changes in methods of production and consumption to combat this warming or at least the human causes that produce and accentuate it,” he wrote.

The pope is very critical of anybody who stands in the way of tackling the problem of global warming – whether they are merely indifferent or actively sceptical.

“The attitudes that stand in the way of a solution, even among believers, range from negation of the problem, to indifference, to convenient resignation or blind faith in technical solutions,” he wrote.

It is unfortunate that the Pope has chosen to further the myth of man-made global warming. The Bible commands man to be stewards of the environment–it requires that man be responsible in using the earth’s resources. There is nothing about man being able to influence climate. The push to end global warming is nothing more than a push toward one-world control of world finances and resources combined with an attempt to blackmail those countries that are prosperous.

If the Pope truly wants to combat global poverty (as countries become more prosperous, they generally become more environmentally conscious) and help fight world poverty, he needs to come out in favor of private property rights. There are two things that economically successful countries have in common–one is equality under the law and the other is private property rights (see rightwinggranny). The problem is not greed or materialism–it’s government control of what should be free markets. A free-market economy benefits the rich and the poor. That would be a Papal doctrine I could support. Unfortunately, those people who like to be in control are generally against giving away that much freedom.

A Video That Explains Where We Are

I realize that this is not a short video, but it is a briefing by Stephen Coughlin, a man who is no longer allowed to brief our military because he is politically incorrect. Please watch it and understand that our country needs to wake up and realize that our government is not telling the truth. You can go directly to the video on YouTube.

I am currently reading Catastrophic Failure a book by Stephen Coughlin. I would strongly recommend the book to everyone who wants to be informed about the War on Terror.

This Is Not Wise

Fox News is reporting today that President Obama has transferred six more prisoners out of Guantanamo. The six are from Yemen and are being transferred to Oman.

The article reports:

Congressional Republicans and other critics of releasing detainees argue they have the strong potential to return to the battlefield or commit other acts of terror.

“It’s extremely troubling that the Obama administration has sent six dangerous terrorists to Oman, which borders Yemen — a country engulfed in civil war and that serves as the headquarters for al Qaeda’s most dangerous affiliate,” said New Hampshire GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee

“Even more disturbing is the fact that the administration has not provided sufficient assurances to Congress or to the public that these terrorists will not return to the battlefield. If they are not securely detained, no one should be surprised if they travel to Yemen and re-engage in terrorist activities,” she said.

2016 GOP presidential candidate and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said: “President Obama is once again putting his legacy above the safety and security of Americans. We need an effective detention program, not continued transfers of prisoners to countries without clear requirements for their monitoring to ensure they don’t return to the battlefield.”

The release was approved by various government agencies, including the Defense Department and State Department.

There are some valid questions about the release of these prisoners. In the past, prisoners released have returned to the battlefield to fight against American soldiers. There really is nothing that will prevent these six from doing that–Oman borders Yemen, and we have no idea how carefully these men will be watched. Unfortunately we have people in our government who are not looking out for the interests of Americans or American soldiers. The release (or transfer) of these six prisoners is one example of that.

Not All Religious Traditions Are The Same

Last Sunday, Fox News reported on the arrest of youth counselor Ahmad Saleem, one of twenty-two people arrested in an undercover child sex sting.  Ahmad Saleem is a Muslim youth coordinator and former CAIR community organizer. He is accused by police of traveling to the home of a minor he met online to have sex.

Unfortunately, Muslim men having sex with underage girls has been a problem in Britain. It looks as if the problem may have arrived here. In November I posted an article about Birmingham, England, where political correctness and fear of being called racist prevented the exploitation of teenage girls there since the 1990’s.

The article reported:

Britain’s Birmingham Mail reported last week that Birmingham’s City Council buried a report about Muslim cab drivers exploiting non-Muslim girls back in 1990.

…“The sad part of this story,” Jesson concluded, “is not the suppression of evidence but that the relevant organisations have failed to address this problem.”

Indeed so – and that is because of its racial and religious aspects. British authorities persist in seeing this as a racial issue, when in fact these cabbies only preyed upon these girls because they were non-Muslims, and thus eligible to become “captives of the right hand” (cf. Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50) and used as sex slaves.

CAIR and similar organizations will try to put the best face on the arrest of Ahmad Saleem as they can, but remember, according to Sharia Law, he did nothing wrong. Remember also, that the U.N. Human Rights law supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is compliant with Sharia Law (see previous article on this blog). This is what America is opening itself up to when it embraces the idea of Sharia Law. Human Rights under Sharia Law are not the same as Human Rights under the U.S. Constitution. Keep that in mind when you hear Muslim organizations and American politicians saying that Sharia Law will peacefully co-exist with the U.S. Constitution–it will not.

Islam Has A Problem With Free Speech

I am currently reading the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. In the book, the Mr. Coughlin explains the Islamic view of free speech and human rights. One of the things he makes clear in the book is that in Islam, human rights and free speech must be subject to Sharia Law. Simply stated, this means that apostasy or slander can be punishable by death. Under Sharia Law, slander is defined as anything that makes the person hearing it unhappy–truth is not relevant in the definition. A recent story posted at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog illustrates this. The headline of the story is, “UC Berkeley Student’s Article Pulled Over Fears For Her Safety.”

This is the article:

If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.

I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.

Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.

A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.

At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.

Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.

After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.

Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.

The publishing of this article put the author’s life in danger.

The American First Amendment is at risk. According to the book Catastrophic Failure, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that America would not “criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” (Page 309) Secretary Clinton supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education,, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Since the Muslim community seems to be the community that reacts to free speech with violence, we can see what this resolution is actually about. It is a quiet imposition of Sharia Law on non-Muslim countries. If my speech causes violence, I do not have the right to free speech. If my speech does not cause violence, it is acceptable. Logically it follows that since Christians and Jews do not kill people in response to negative statements, criticizing them must be acceptable as free speech. Since Muslims often respond to negative statements with violence, criticizing them is no longer legal.

This is the enemy we need to be aware of in America–the enemy that attacks our Constitution and freedom. It is a subtle attack that needs to be countered with truth and education. Unfortunately, our government and our mainstream media are not familiar with either of those concepts.

 

Why I Am Not Overly Concerned About Global Warming

Newsbusters posted a story today reminding us of some predictions made on “Good Morning America” in 2008. Looked at in hindsight, the predictions are almost funny. At the time, I am sure there were people who took them seriously and were totally stressed out by the information.

This is the partial transcript of the news segment from 2008:

CHRIS CUOMO: Now, we will have a dramatic preview for you of an unprecedented ABC News event called “Earth 2100.” We’re asking you to help create a story that is yet to unfold: What our world will look like in 100 years if we don’t save our troubled planet. Your reports will actually help form the backbone of a two-hour special airing this fall. ABC’s Bob Woodruff will be the host. He joins us now. Pleasure, Bob.

 BOB WOODRUFF: You too, Chris. You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.

CUOMO: I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad? 

…CUOMO: I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad? 

WOODRUFF: It’s very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you’ve got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You’ve got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we’re approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it. 

The news segment also included predictions that New York City would be underwater by 2015 and there would be wildfires everywhere. You get the idea.

The bottom line here is simple–we really don’t have the ability to predict the weather seven years in advance or the ability to understand if man actually has the ability to impact the weather. My favorite website (which I have mentioned before) for accurate, scientific information on climate is wattsupwiththat.com. In the early days of this blog, that site was the source of my information about surface stations–the monitors that measure temperature for the climate scientists. I will admit that I lost a bit of respect for some climate scientists when I saw where some of these monitors were placed–on a small private airport apron where people warmed up their private planes, next to the air conditioning exhaust from an apartment building, in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, etc. There really is a lot more going on with so-called climate science than meets the eye.

 

 

 

 

 

Equal Rights Does Not Mean That You Have The Right To Deny Me My First Amendment Rights

Equal rights means equal rights. The First Amendment allows Americans the freedom to practice their religion. The implication is that Americans are allowed to live their lives according to their religious beliefs. That is their rights. As I have explained before, I do not care about gay marriage–marry anyone you want to. However, I do care about the violation of my First Amendment rights. What do I mean? If I am a Pastor who holds the Biblical view of marriage, or a baker who holds a Biblical view of marriage, or a florist who holds a Biblical view of marriage, I should not be forced to support your gay marriage. I don’t care if you get married, but I don’t have to be a part of that process. To me, that is what the law should be. Oddly enough, there are actually people who agree with me. (Not the ones who wrote the article I am about to refer to, but the ones who actually voted on the issue).

The Winston-Salem Journal reported today that the North Carolina House of Representatives has overridden Governor Pat McCrory‘s veto of a bill allowing employees who issue marriage licenses to refuse to complete paperwork for gay couples on religious grounds. In other words, the employees can exercise their First Amendment rights. The gay people can also get married–there will be someone there to do the paperwork. Everyone’s rights are respected.

The newspaper does not agree with my conclusion. The article states:

Gay rights groups and some Democrats said legal challenges were likely to come soon for the new law, the second of its kind nationwide. Utah passed one this year.

North Carolina‘s law took effect as the state House voted to override Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s earlier veto. The Senate already had voted for the override. McCrory said though he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, no state employee should be able to break his or her government oath. His position puts him at odds with social conservatives aligned with his party.

Under the law, some register of deeds workers who assemble licenses and magistrates who solemnize civil marriages can decide to stop performing all marriages — for both straight and gay couples — if they hold a “sincerely held religious objection.” Employees with a religious objection must stop performing all marriage duties for at least six months.

This is not a perfect law–employees with a religious objection are being penalized for having that objection–that is not in keeping with their First Amendment rights.

The article goes on to list the inconvenience of the law going into effect. I wonder if the newspaper would be so quick to list the inconvenience if its First Amendment rights were taken away.

 

 

Coming Down On The Wrong Side Of History

I don’t claim to be a historian,  but I believe in the Bible. Genesis 12:3 (and also a few other places) says in referring to Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” I am not going to argue with something that is stated in the Bible more than once. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has made a decision that could easily be considered less than a blessing to Israel.

The Wall Street Journal reported today:

Liberals have spent four decades condemning the Imperial Presidency—and especially the depredations of the Bush-Cheney regime—but all of a sudden they are celebrating the Supreme Court for its Jerusalem passports decision on Monday. We guess the “unitary executive” is fine as long as he happens to be a Democrat.

Those of us with more respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers think Zivotofsky v. Kerry is a closer legal call. But the decision is still the right constitutional resolution to a long-running dispute between Congress and the executive branch about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

…This judicial outcome is highly unusual. For the first time in U.S. history the Court has sided with a President openly defying an act of Congress related to foreign affairs.

CBN News reported today:

Palestinian Authority leaders praised Monday’s Supreme Court ruling disallowing Americans born in Jerusalem to list Israel as the country of birth on their passports, saying it clarified that “Jerusalem is occupied territory.”

“It is a clear message to the Israeli government that its decisions and measures in occupying and annexing Jerusalem are illegal and void and that it should immediately stop these measures because it’s a clear violation of the international law,” P.A. chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said.

President Barack Obama also welcomed the decision as affirming his power to set the nation’s foreign policy, while demonstrating his neutrality in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

There is nothing neutral in refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Last week I posted an article detailing the history of Israel beginning with the granting of the land of Israel (then called Palestine) to the Jews in 1921. The article included the following map:

The current demand for a Palestinian state is garbage. Transjordan (now Jordan) was set up to be a Palestinian state. That land was taken away from Israel (it was given to Israel in the original Balfour Declaration) in 1921.

The most telling quote in this whole distortion of history we are currently dealing with comes from Walid Shoebat, who stated, “One day during the 1960’s I went to bed a Jordanian Muslim, and when I woke up the next morning, I was informed that I was now a Palestinian Muslim, and that I was no longer a Jordanian Muslim”

The issue of a Palestinian state in land that belongs to Israel is nothing more than a plan on the part of the Arab nations to drive Israel into the sea.

As I have stated in previous articles:

Palestine was the name given to Israel at that time.  Transjordan was originally to be given to the Jewish state, but Britain reneged on its promise and gave the land to the Arabs instead.  In 1921, the Arab representative responsible for the above division of the land, Emir Feisal, agreed to abandon all claims of his father to Western Palelstine if he secured Iraq and Eastern Palestine as Arab terrorities.  We saw how well he kept this agreement. These are the borders set up for the nation of Israel.  The 1949 borders were simply an armistice.

After the nation of Israel was declared, the Arabs invaded and took control of the Old City of Jerusalem. During the time the Arabs controlled the Old City, Jews were barred from their holiest sites. Unfortunately, past behavior is often an indication of future behavior.

Why are we attempting to create another terrorist state? We are definitely on the wrong side of history with this decision.

The Media Is Going To Do This To All Republican Candidates–We Need To Learn How To Deal With It

By now we have all heard about the New York Times Story of Marco Rubio and his luxury speedboat. I found a picture of the boat at Yahoo:

Marco Rubio’s ‘Luxury’ Boat Can Fit In Hillary Clinton’s Pool

The New York Times called it an $80,000 speedboat. I am not a boat person, but somehow I find that rather hard to believe. If he paid $80,000 for this boat, we should not elect him for President simply because he is fiscally irresponsible. Somehow I doubt that is the case.

On the other hand, the media never seemed particularly interested in Secretary of State John Kerry‘s boat when he was running for office or when he was a Senator from Massachusetts. Below is a picture of the boat parked in Nantucket (not exactly the low-rent district):

JohnKerry3Just for the record, there is another twist on the John Kerry’s boat story. In July of 2010, the Huffington Post reported:

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is docking his family’s new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to the cash-strapped Bay State.

If the “Isabel” were kept at the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee’s summer vacation home on Nantucket, or in Boston Harbor near his city residence, he would be liable for $437,500 in one-time sales tax. He would also have to pay $70,000 in annual excise taxes.

Leave Marco Rubio alone–at least he is not avoiding taxes on a $7 million dollar yacht.

All voters need to understand that the media is not unbiased. They are going to try to destroy any candidate who looks like he (or she) might be a challenge to Hillary Clinton. We need to learn how to read between the lines and how to fight back. It would be nice if the media took the time and had the inclination to tell both sides of all stories about everyone’s campaign for President, but that is simply not the case. The solution is that voters have to know how to get past the media and do their own research.

The Government Is Now Controlling Your Water

This was posted on YouTube yesterday. This law was not passed by Congress–it came from the unelected officials at the Environmental Protection Agency. It is time for Congress to assume its proper role of legislating–not ceding that role to the members of the Executive Branch.

Do We Want The Federal Government Telling Us Where We Can Live?

Local governments have traditionally been in charge of local zoning. Local governments are obviously closest to zoning issues, and having zoning issues resolved at the local level allows the local citizens to have a voice in zoning decisions. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government any control of zoning. However, right now we have a President who does not seem to have read the U.S. Constitution. President Obama wants to tell all of us where we can live.

The National Review posted an article today about President Obama’s new rule:

Safely past the hurdles of re-election and the mid-terms, President Obama has plenty of time and scope left to continue his transformative ways. Obama’s sweeping new rule, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH), is up next. AFFH would override local zoning authority and expand federal control over where and how Americans live. Because of its sweeping impact and the fact that potential Clinton Vice-Presidential running mate, HUD Secretary Julian Castro, will be in charge of implementation, this issue has the potential to shift the terrain of the presidential race as well.

…Contrary to its title, AFFH isn’t about blocking housing discrimination. That is already illegal, and former HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan acknowledged that AFFH is not about stopping housing discrimination, but instead about changing the way Americans live. AFFH will force every municipality that takes federal housing money to take a detailed survey of where its citizens live, by income, race, ethnicity, etc. If the mixture is not to the federal government’s liking, changes would have to be made at local expense. In effect, this would strip local governments of their zoning power.

The Republicans in Congress need to stop this power grab in its tracks. There have been a lot of talk about gerrymandering and the impact it has on elections. Gerrymandering will seem like a walk in the park when voters are told where they can live and where they can’t live.

There is an additional article from August 2013 on the government’s plan to take over local zoning at the National Review. This plan looks a lot like Agenda 21. For those of you not familiar with Agenda 21, it is a sustainable development plan developed by the United Nations at a meeting in Brazil in 1992. Basically it means the end of single-family homes and the concept of private property. It also has a very negative impact on American sovereignty.