Monthly Archives: September 2015

Feelings Are Different Than Facts

Posted on by

 

Last week The National Review posted an article about 150 students who walked out of Missouri’s Hillsboro High School. The students were protesting Lila Perry’s request to use the girl’s locker room. Lila Perry is a male student stating that he feels like a girl. He still has all the basic male parts, and the controversy began because he was in the girl’s locker room with his male part exposed.

The article reports:

Perry told News 4 school officials have been accommodating, understanding, and compliant with Title IX. The school offered her a private gender-neutral restroom, which she turned down.

I would like to know on whose advice the gender-neutral restroom was turned down. I would also like to know when exposing male body parts in a girls’ locker room became a right rather than a punishable offense.

Thank God the students had the common sense to walk out.

 

Does The Truth Change The Impact Of The Picture?

Posted on by

We have all seen the recent picture of a three-year-old boy who drowned as his family was traveling to Europe from Turkey. The story surrounding the picture was that the family was fleeing the violence in Syria. The facts are somewhat different.

On Monday The Daily Caller reported that Abdullah Kurdi, the boy’s father, had been living in a relatively safe part of Turkey for the past three years. The family was not fleeing the war in Syria, they were traveling to Europe in order for Abdullah Kurdi to have his teeth fixed. The trip was financed by a relative in Canada. It was reported that the family had sought asylum in Canada and been turned down, but that was also proven to be false.

The facts are important, but have gotten lost in the impact of the picture.

The truth does not change the fact that there is a refugee crisis. The truth does not change the fact that unscrupulous people are making a lot of money bringing people out of Turkey on boats that are not safe. The truth does not change the fact that western countries need to take some of these refugees in. However, the the truth also does not change the fact that because the majority of these refugees are healthy young men–not families–they need to be vetted carefully or we may find ourselves importing terrorists into western countries in the name of charity.

Russia And Syria

Posted on by

The Business Insider posted an article about the meddling of Russia and Iran in Syria. Both nations would like to see President Bashar Assad stay in power. The situation in Syria is getting very complicated. Assad is losing ground, and Russia is about to come to his aid.

The article posted a map showing the current situation:

syria

This is not acceptable to either Russia or Iran.

The article concludes:

“Clearly Putin‘s not particularly bothered by continuing to frustrate the United States,” Bremmer ( Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group) said. “And the Europeans aren’t going to punish him for military engagement in Syria — they’re more interested in coming to terms with Assad just as they’re more prepared to see a frozen conflict in Ukraine (see Hollande’s commentson his hopes to end sanctions).”

The fallout of all of this, according to Bremmer, will be more chaos — and more refugees headed to Europe.

“As the West presses ISIS while Russia provides direct support for Assad, the Syrians are caught in the middle,” Bremmer said. “Anyone that can find a way out will. And the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe, four years in the making, is guaranteed to expand for a fifth.”

When America has a weak President, bad things happen. President Obama’s line in the sand has long since been washed away by the incoming tide.

Why The Refugees Are Heading To Europe Rather Than Arab Countries

Posted on by

There is a difference between cultures. Western culture, based on a Judeo-Christian ethic, supports the idea of helping your fellow human being in times of crisis. The Muslim culture has built into it the practice of jihad, which by its nature, does not protect innocent life or include the concept of helping those less fortunate.

On Friday, the Center for Security Policy posted a list of reasons why Arab countries are not taking in the refugees fleeing northern Africa and the Middle East.

Here is the list:

  • Muslim countries know that the West will take care of their mistakes so they don’t have to avoid the negative consequences of their actions.
  • Western countries quickly come to the rescue, open their wallets and land to prove to the world that they are not Islamophobes.
  • Arab countries lack compassion and action to rescue each other despite the rhetoric of Arab/Islamic unity. Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations never open their borders to poor Muslims in distress. Even Egypt rejected the Darfur refugees who were later forced to go to Israel, which took them.
  • Oil rich Arab countries make it very difficult for other Arabs to visit except for haj. They are very tribal and refuse to dilute their culture with influx of foreigners. Third world country workers are treated inhumanely and are rarely given permanent residency, citizenship or equal rights as citizens.
  • Arabs would rather spend their petrodollars on expanding their influence in the West rather than making life better for their own citizens or supporting other Muslim nations who are financially less fortunate.
  • Islamic groups believe that refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan will spread Sharia in Europe, which is the main goal of jihad.
  • By clearing the area from the opposition and citizens who are not contributing to the empowerment of ISIS, clears the way for ISIS to expand beyond Syria and Iraq. Europe and America are absorbing the opposition to ISIS, so why stand in the way?
  • Life and saving lives and avoiding human tragedy are not more important than jihad in Arab culture.

There is more to this story. Pamela Geller is an expert who studies Islam and understands how the religion works. She posted an article on her website yesterday. In this article she points out that the majority of the refugees arriving in Europe and young men who are in good physical shape.

On Sunday, Pamela Geller posted an article at World Net Daily that included the following:

In February, the Islamic State threatened to send half-a-million Muslim migrants to Europe in a “psychological” attack against the West. And lest we forget, back in May, I reported that the Islamic State was making a fortune smuggling Muslim “migrants” into Europe.

Immigration jihad, or hijrah, is the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.

The EU is telling its members that they must take in these migrants or lose important grants. Yet meanwhile, the oil-rich Muslim countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia, are doing nothing for the refugees. Muslim countries are not taking a single refugee. No, non-Muslim Europe must absorb them all, so as to be all the more easily conquered and Islamized.

The fact is, the mass Muslim migration is symptomatic – it’s not the problem. ISIS is the problem. Iran fueling and fighting Assad’s civil war is the problem. All of this chaos has resulted from Obama’s disastrous and incoherent foreign policy.

I do not have a problem with taking in refugees. However, we need to make sure the refugees come with the understanding that they will need to assimilate and become self-sufficient–not live off of the American taxpayers. In the past when we have taken in refugees, we have not offered them welfare, and they have learned the language and assimilated. We need to understand that every refugee who comes to Europe or America from the Middle East comes with the idea of being part of western civilization.

 

Stepping Back And Looking At The Big Picture

Posted on by

There are a number of conservatives seriously alarmed at the rise of Donald Trump. Donald Trump has not consistently espoused conservative principles and probably does not qualify as a conservative in the minds of many of the conservative intellectuals. What Donald Trump represents is the anger of the conservatives at the miserable performance of the establishment Republicans in Washington. The conservatives believed what they were told–elect Republicans and things will change–the debt will decrease, ObamaCare will go away, and the Republicans will check the runaway executive orders of President Obama. Right. And I saw a flying pig last week.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an open letter to Jonah Goldberg, a conservative who is concerned that the Donald Trump candidacy will destroy the Republican party.

The article reminds us:

Angered (by the tricks used to pass ObamaCare), we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.  Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

We are still waiting.

The article points out:

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Again, the Republican party ignored the people who elected them.

The article cites the Iran deal:

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.  Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

The elected Republicans again ignored the wishes of the people who elected them.

The article lists examples of the establishment GOP working against the will of the voters. Please follow the link to the article to read the list. It is eye-opening.

The article concludes:

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?

Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?

Seriously?

I truly believe that this article expresses the frustration of the conservatives in the Republican party. Right now there is very little difference between the establishment Republicans and the Democrats. If the establishment Republicans don’t wake up soon, there will be two political parties–the Democrats and the Conservatives. Donald Trump is not the problem–he may be a symptom, but he is not the problem.

Celebrating The Labor Force On Labor Day

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about America‘s shrinking labor force. Although the unemployment rate is reported at 5.1 percent, that does not take into account the number of Americans who have given up looking for work.

The article reports:

The “unemployment rate” most often cited in the news media is U-3. But U-3 ignores everyone who hasn’t actively looked for work within the previous four weeks. So if you can’t find a job and give up looking, you don’t count as “unemployed” in the U-3 rate.

If we calculated the illiteracy rate that way, we wouldn’t count someone as illiterate unless he had attended a reading class in the past four weeks. In other words, the U-3 figure is fake, because it ignores whether the labor force participation rate has dropped.

According to Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the Labor Department, if America today had as high of a labor force participation rate as we had in 2006, then “last year’s average unemployment rate would have been 11.4 percent instead of 6.2 percent.”

So the U-3 measure of unemployment creates the illusion that the economy is serving American workers roughly twice as well as it really is, when you consider all the persons who’ve given up looking for jobs.

Today’s labor force participation rate is 62.6 percent, a 38-year low. That depressed number wipes out all the gains in employment made during the Reagan era, a time when women by the tens of millions moved into the workforce.

Today, more women are on food stamps than have full-time jobs.

If the economy is doing so well, why are more women on food stamps than have full-time jobs?

The article goes on to explain that before the housing bubble burst, the American economy grew at a rate of about 3.1 percent a year. Since President Obama has been in office, the growth has been slightly over 2 percent. Slow growth is expected to continue due to President Obama’s policies–ObamaCare and excessive Environmental Protection Agency regulations on energy production are expected to have a serious negative impact on economic growth.

The article concludes:

Even worse: That idea of a “new normal” 2.1 to 2.2 percent annual growth rate may be overly optimistic. We have yet to see the effect of many recent and proposed anti-growth policies — for example, Obamacare, which is being phased in over a period of years, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed plan, not yet final, to make the price of electricity “skyrocket.” If anti-growth policies push the economic growth rate down to around 1.6 percent a year, that’s like cutting the size of the 2063 economy in half. Long before that, government finances will collapse.

Welcome to Greece.

Elections matter. Unless we change those making policy in Washington, D.C., we will become Greece.

Is The President Required To Follow The Law?

Posted on by

Scott Johnson posted an article at Power Line today about an aspect of the Iran nuclear deal that has not been widely discussed. It seems that one of the provisions in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (the Corker-Cardin bill) that was signed by President Obama is that President Obama is required to transmit to Congress the agreement–“including all related materials and annexes.” He is required to do this “not later than five days after reaching the agreement.”

The article reminds us:

Obama has not done so. The administration has failed or refused to submit the IAEA side deal with Iran regarding the possible military dimensions of Iran’s research at the Parchin military facility to Congress.

Indeed, the administration claim not even to have seen the IAEA side deal. Rather, administration officials claim only to have been briefed by the IAEA on the terms of the side deal. They claim it is cloaked in secrecy that prevents its disclosure. The side deal is nevertheless an integral part of the JCPOA and its disclosure expressly required by the act.

So what happens now?

The article reports:

Rep. Mike Pompeo and attorney David Rivkin take note in a brief Washington Post column. They write:

 Congress must now confront the grave issues of constitutional law prompted by the president’s failure to comply with his obligations under the act. This is not the first time this administration has disregarded clear statutory requirements, encroaching in the process upon Congress’s legislative and budgetary prerogatives. The fact that this has happened again in the context of a national security agreement vital to the United States and its allies makes the situation all the more serious.

For Congress to vote on the merits of the agreement without the opportunity to review all of its aspects would both effectively sanction the president’s unconstitutional conduct and be a major policy mistake. Instead, both houses should vote to register their view that the president has not complied with his obligations under the act by not providing Congress with a copy of an agreement between the IAEA and Iran, and that, as a result, the president remains unable to lift statutory sanctions against Iran. Then, if the president ignores this legal limit on his authority, Congress can and should take its case to court.

There is another aspect to this. Democratic Senators do not want to go on the record in terms of voting for this agreement. The agreement is not popular with the American public, who understands that the agreement paves the way for Iran to go nuclear and will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. So why in the world is President Obama pushing this treaty? There are a lot of guesses, but no real answer. It would be a feather in his cap to negotiate an agreement with a country that has been at war with America since 1978. The problem is that after the agreement is signed, Iran will still be at war with America. There is no financial gain for America in this treaty–Iran gets more money to fund terrorism and kill American soldiers in Afghanistan. Iran is also allowed to flood the world markets with oil, possibly crippling American efforts at energy independence. There is no upside for America in this treaty–it is a President looking for what he considers a foreign policy accomplishment. He may well get his accomplishment, but it’s a safe bet that history will not look kindly on this treaty.

Fixing Washington One Thing At A Time

Posted on by

Most Americans are not happy with the way Washington works (or doesn’t work). Conservative Republicans complain that they keep voting for Republicans, Republicans win, and nothing changes. Democrats complain that the Republicans are blocking President Obama’s policies, but almost everything President Obama has wanted to do, he has done–if not through Congress, through Executive Order. There is, however, someone in the House of Representatives who has proposed a way to change the status quo.

On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Representative Meadows has initiated a “motion to vacate the chair.” The motion would remove Speaker John Boehner from his position as the Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Meadows said “it’s time for our leaders to stop making promises and leaving them unfulfilled.” He added that, based on the whip count, if a vote had taken place to remove Boehner from the speakership before the recess, he would have had to wrangle up votes from house Democrats to keep his seat.

“At town hall meetings and every where I go, people tell me, ‘I’m, standing with you. We’re standing behind you.’ There is a growing momentum. I’m hoping that leadership can change course and they are willing to listen, and willing to fight for Americans.”

Meadows believes that it’s a good sign that, if we had a presidential Republican primary right now, we would have a “more non-conventional nominee than an establishment one.” Meadows concluded saying that, “Having the people at my back is better than having D.C. in my Pocket.”

The dissatisfaction with Washington politics is on both sides of the aisle. The dissatisfaction partially explains why both political parties have popular candidates that have historically had very loose relationships with the parties–Bernie Sanders is described as a Socialist–not a Democrat, although he caucuses with the Democrats in Congress, and Donald Trump has been a Democrat for more years than he has been a Republican.

I think Representative Meadows represents the feelings of the average American. They may not know exactly what is needed, but they know something is wrong. Representative Meadows is willing to take a first step toward changing Washington.

The Ugly Side Of Politics

Posted on by

This article is based on two articles. One article is from Front Page Magazine on August 25th, and the other article is from The Washington Times yesterday.

The Front Page Magazine article reports:

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Iran Lobby cash had made the White House count on him as the Republican who would flip, but Flake came out against the deal. The Iran Lobby invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed.

I understand that lobbying is a legal part of American politics, but it bothers me to see lobbying done by a country whose leadership is shouting, “Death to America.” Iran has never claimed to be an ally of America and has been killing American soldiers since the 1980’s (Iran funds Hezbollah, who bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983). If lobbying is legal (which it is, and I suspect will continue to be), I have no problem with our allies meeting with Congressmen. However, I do believe that donations from foreign countries are illegal. Despite the fact that IAPAC is probably based in America, they represent donations from a foreign government. That is illegal.

Fast forward to The Washington Times story from yesterday.

The Washington Times reports:

Democrats will try to mount a filibuster to block the Iran nuclear deal from even having to reach President Obama’s desk for a veto, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid signaled Saturday in a statement.

He and his party colleagues already have enough committed supporters that they would be able to sustain an Obama veto and allow the Iran deal to proceed, but a filibuster would be an even bigger coup, halting the issue earlier in the process and heading off a protracted — and potentially politically costly — veto fight.

What does this actually mean? It is very simple. The Democrats (many of whom have been given money by the Iranian lobby) do not want to go on the record as voting on the Iranian nuclear deal. It is common knowledge that the American people overwhelmingly oppose this agreement and that it is a bad deal. However, many Democratic politicians have been bought.

It is also disturbing to see how far-reaching the efforts of the Iranian lobby are. The Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee was Hillary Clinton’s national campaign finance director before pleading guilty to fraud.

Front Page Magazine reports:

Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years.  A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.    

 In the House, the Democratic recipients of IAPAC money came out for the deal. Mike Honda, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Iran Lobby backed the nuke sellout. As did Andre Carson, Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards and Jackie Speier. The Iran Lobby was certainly getting its money’s worth.

But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.\

This is the kind of corruption we need to remove from our national government. Term limits might be a good first step.

Curbing Runaway Spending In Washington

Posted on by

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today about spending in Washington. The article included the following chart:

The chart shows the impact that the spending caps have had on the federal budget. The decline in spending is due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. The caps limit both domestic non-entitlement spending and national defense spending. However, it is becoming obvious that the President wants to be free of those restraints.

The article reports:

The White House plan would increase discretionary spending to $1.091 trillion from $1.017 trillion. This $74 billion increase would be split evenly between defense and domestic spending. The 7% hike in 2016 would dish out plums to unions, foreign aid groups, the education blob, government contractors, federal employees, the climate change lobby and other tax guzzlers.

Our Senate sources tell us that Minority Leader Harry Reid is threatening in private that if Republicans don’t give Democrats the raise they want, there will be fiscal paralysis in the Senate and another government shutdown Oct. 1 — which, of course, they will blame on the GOP.

Many Republicans are inclined to go along with the great fiscal escape plan. Some have legitimate concerns about more money needed for our military in times of growing national security threats. Already 60% of the cuts are in defense, even though military spending is less than 20% of the budget. But many GOP appropriators just want more domestic pork for their own districts.

I would like to remind every Republican Congressman now serving in Congress. You were elected to bring the spending under control. If you are not able to do that, we need to elect someone who can. End of story.

Do We Have Values?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Military Times posted a story about Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland, a Green Beret who was selected for an involuntary discharge through an Army force reduction program.

The article reports:

Martland, 33, was awarded two Bronze Star medals, including one for valor, during his time at JBLM (Joint Base Lewis–McChord). He likely will be discharged in November because the discipline handed to him for assaulting the Afghan made him a target for Army downsizing. Veteran soldiers with negative performance reviews in their service records are being culled from the ranks as part of the post-Iraq War drawdown.

The article reports the actions Sgt. Martland took that got him in trouble with his superiors:

In 2011, Martland was nearing the end of his yearlong deployment in northern Afghanistan’s Kunduz province when he and an officer became outraged with the behavior of some local leaders they were responsible for developing as police commanders.

Martland and his detachment commander, Capt. Daniel Quinn, lost their tempers when one leader near their base kidnapped a boy for more than a week, chained him to a bed, raped the child and then assaulted the boy’s mother, Quinn said.

The mother appealed to the Green Berets to help her son. Quinn said the soldiers brought the Afghan commander to their base and confronted him.

Quinn told The News Tribune that the Afghan admitted he had raped the boy. He angered the American soldiers by showing disregard for their concerns.

“He started laughing when we talked about what a big deal this was,” Quinn said.

Martland and Quinn proceeded to assault the Afghan. Accounts vary on how badly they hurt him.

The article quotes Col. Steve Johnson, the battalion commander in the 1st Special Forces Group was in Afghanistan at the time of the incident:

“You cannot try to impose American values and American norms onto the Afghan culture because they’re completely different,” Johnson said. “We can report and we can encourage them. We do not have any power or the ability to use our hands to compel them to be what we see as morally better.”

If being angered by the rape of a child and a mother is an American value, I am proud to be an American. I see no reason to send American troops into harms way to fight for people who think rape is fine. I also think that pedophelia is one value we should not accept as a legitimate part of any culture.

The Legal Double Standard

Posted on by

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal posted an article about Kim Davis, the county clerk for Kentucky’s Rowan Country.Ms. Davis is now in jail because she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because it was against her religious beliefs. There are some people who believe that because she is an elected official, her religious beliefs are not allowed to influence the way she does her job, but there is a bit of inconsistency here.

The article reports:

We don’t recall President Obama insisting on “the rule of law” when his then Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced in 2011 that he wouldn’t defend challenges to what was then the law—the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton—in the courts. Nor did we hear about upholding the law when mayors such as Gavin Newsom in San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state laws.

Officials such as Messrs. Holder and Newsom were as guilty as Ms. Davis of elevating personal preferences over the law. Yet they were lionized by those now holding up an obscure Kentucky clerk as a national villain. Meanwhile, five of Rowan County’s six deputy clerks say they will start processing licenses for same-sex couples Friday, but Miss Davis says she will not authorize them.

I don’t have the answer to this dilemma. I do believe religious beliefs should be protected, but I am not sure how that would play out in this situation. I suspect our Founding Fathers would come down on the side of Ms. Davis. However, the past behavior of the Obama Administration seems to indicate that if you disagree with a law, you don’t have to enforce (or follow) it. Obviously you can’t have it both ways.

America Needs Prayer

Posted on by

I received information on this website from a friend. There is a movement in some states (and hopefully more will be added) to pray for America. The intention of the group is to bring Americans together to pray for our country. This is the website.

theresponse

The Response: USA is holding statewide solemn assemblies to gather people from all ages, denominations and backgrounds in prayer and fasting on behalf of our nation. This is the time for Christians to come together to call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

Please go to http://theresponseusa.com/ for further details.

Money Won’t Make This Better

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday on the efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry to sweeten the Iran deal for Israel and Saudi Arabia. Frankly, there are some things you just can’t sweeten.

The article reports:

Kerry admits that, despite the deal, Iran will continue to back terrorist groups across the globe and promises to boost military support and funding to Israel and Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The letter comes in response to concerns among lawmakers, Israel, and other Gulf region allies that the nuclear accord will boost the Islamic Republic’s support for terrorism, while leaving traditional U.S. allies on the defense.

“Important questions have been raised concerning the need to increase security assistance to our allies and partners in the region and to enhance our efforts to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region,” Kerry writes. “We share the concern expressed by many in Congress regarding Iran’s continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Assad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel.”

The Obama administration, Kerry claims, is under “no illusion that this behavior will change following implementation of the JCPOA,” or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

If the behavior of Iran will not change following the implementation of the JCPOA, then why are we agreeing to the JCPOA? Wouldn’t it be better to refuse to lift any sanctions or give Iran any money until the leaders of Iran change their behavior (and maybe stop shouting “Death to Israel” and “Death to America“)? I admit that I am only a lowly blogger, but that seems rather obvious to me. Why are we going to give Iran access to millions of dollars to buy more and better weapons to kill American soldiers?

The article reports:

One senior Congressional aide who received the letter said that it is a clear attempt by the administration to placate regional fears about the deal.

“Let’s not be fooled about what the letter represents. This desperate move to placate Israel and our Gulf partners is a tacit acknowledgment that Iran will expand its international terror regime thanks to the nuclear agreement,” the source said. “If this is such a good deal, why does the administration feel compelled to immediately offer arms packages as compensation to our regional allies?”

“No amount of conventional weapons can neutralize the threat posed by the mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons,” the source said. “This type of appeasement is a slap in the face to our closets allies and a wink-wink to the dictators in Tehran.”

Obviously there are people in our government who understand the dangers of this agreement. Unfortunately, there are also many people in our government who choose not to listen to them. I believe this agreement will be able to get through the games being played in the Senate and will go into force. I also believe that the day that happens will be a truly sad day for America. We have turned our backs on our friends and chosen to fund our enemies. That is not wisdom.

Time For New Management

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted a story yesterday that illustrates the poor management of the Veteran’s Administration.

The story reports:

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) on Wednesday confirmed that more than one-third of the people thought to be seeking eligibility for VA benefits are deceased, and said many of them have been dead for more than four years.

The OIG report confirms the worst fears of members of Congress, whosaid in July that they would investigate unsubstantiated claims that thousands of veterans died before they ever became eligible for VA benefits.

Scott Davis, a VA employee and whistleblower, has dismissed the findings of the OIG. He claims that the independent investigator has no way of knowing how many veterans died seeking care. That may be, but if the number is one veteran, that is one too many.

The article states:

“We can’t say what’s what because of flaws in the enrollment system, and the flaws exist basically because the people responsible for fixing it haven’t,” he (Scott Davis) said.

Davis said the main official responsible for the VA’s Health Eligibility Center, Stephanie Mardon, should be fired for keeping such poor records, which even the OIG said is hurting efforts to get care to veterans. “Overstated pending enrollment records create unnecessary difficulty and confusion in identifying and assisting veterans with the most urgent need for health care enrollment,” it said.

But Davis also said the OIG report gives the VA, and the Obama administration, the tools it needs to start fixing the problem.

In July of 2014, Robert A. McDonald became Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It seems to me that there needs to be a way of mapping whatever progress he is making in fixing the problems the Veterans Administration has had in recent years. If things have not changed by July 2016, it is time to consider either replacing Secretary McDonald or disbanding the Veterans Administration and allowing veterans to seek medical care outside of the Veterans Administration at the same cost.

This Really Does Not Look Good

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article stating that the attorney for the Information Technology (IT) specialist who handled Hillary Clinton’s email server has informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi that his client, Bryan Pagliano, will plead the 5th Amendment if he is called to testify before the Committee. The article states that Mr. Pagliano had worked on the 2008 Clinton campaign, moved to the State Department several months after Mrs. Clinton took office, and left the agency in February 2013, when Mrs. Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State.

There are a number of questions about Mrs. Clinton’s emails. The obvious question is whether there was classified information on the server, but in light of all of the information that has come out since we have learned about the server, the real question is who ordered the wiping of the server and when that order was given. If the wiping of the server was done while it was under investigation, that is a crime. It is questionable whether or not the current Justice Department will prosecute the destruction of evidence, but it is a crime.

The other thing that this story illustrates is the problem with rewarding campaign workers with government jobs. In my mind there is a question as to whether Mr. Paliano‘s first loyalty is to America or to Hillary Clinton. Political appointments to government jobs is nothing new, but in light of recent events, I think the practice needs to be reexamined.

Some Statistics To Think About

Posted on by

There have been a number of videos released showing that Planned Parenthood engages in the sale of aborted baby parts. The videos are hard to watch, but there is a bigger story behind abortion. If ‘black lives matter,” which they do, then the people who are chanting that slogan should be doing it in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic.

In April of this year, Freedom Outpost posted a few statistics on abortion in America. Here are some of the numbers:

Approximately 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.  Every single day, more than 3,000 American babies are killed by abortion.

It has been reported that a staggering 41 percent of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.

Approximately 78 percent of all abortions in New York City are performed on African-American and Hispanic babies.

According to Pastor Clenard Childress, approximately 52 percent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion.

Planned Parenthood specifically targets the poor.  A staggering 72 percent of Planned Parenthood’s “customers” have incomes that are either equal to or beneath 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

The article further reports:

Every single year, both Democrats and Republicans vote to shower Planned Parenthood with hundreds of millions of dollars.

We are told that this must be done because of all the “good” the organization does.

But the truth is that this has been a despicably evil organization from the very beginning.  The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, once said the following….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

She has also stated:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

Is this really what we want to use federal taxpayer dollars to support?

 

Priorities Please

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by Senator John McCain about President Obama’s recent visit to Alaska. During that visit, the President focused his attention on the cataclysmic threat of climate change. (For accurate information on climate change, see wattsupwiththat. It is the world’s most viewed website on climate change)

Senator McCain reports:

Some of my Senate colleagues and I recently returned from the Arctic, and while we saw the challenges of melting polar ice, we also saw a greater and more immediate threat. It is a menace that many assumed was relegated to the past: an aggressive, militarily capable Russian state that is ruled by an anti-American autocrat, hostile to our interests, dismissive of our values, and seeking to challenge the international order that U.S. leaders of both parties have maintained for seven decades.

Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperial ambitions are clear enough in his attempt to dominate Russia’s neighbors, Ukraine most of all. But his ambitions increasingly extend to the Arctic and Europe’s northern flank. That is where I and my colleagues met with leaders and security officials from Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Is President Obama ignoring this threat or is this part of his promise to ‘be more flexible’ in dealing with Russia in his second term?

On Tuesday, CBN News reported:

The president says the science about climate change gets clearer every day and proves it’s no longer a distant threat.

And he’s right that Alaska’s climate is changing. Summer snow is forecast for this Friday amidst a cooling period. Alaska’s climate has been changing for a long time.

The poster child for climate change in Alaska, the Mendenall glacier, which is melting, was already melting in the 1700s and, according to scientists, had retreated one mile by the 1900s.

Some scientists say Alaska has been warming because of a reversal in the Pacific decadal oscillation, a 60-year cycle that sends warmer air to Alaska.

I am the least scientific person I know, but even I know that there are such things are natural climate cycles. Those cycles are what has enabled The Farmer’s Almanac to be one of the most accurate forecasters of weather on the planet. They have been using the same formula to predict weather that was used before computer forecasting came into vogue. Oddly enough, The Farmer’s Almanac predictions have proved to be more accurate than the computer models scientists have created. The climate is changing. The climate is always changing. The question is how much man is responsible for the changes. There was a long period of global warming during the Middle Ages, but somehow I cannot picture it being caused by the Lord of the Manor running around in his SUV.

Global warming is not the greatest threat America faces as a country. The greatest threat we face as a country is the increasing boldness of people who wish to do us harm that are spurred on by the fact that we have a weak President. That is our greatest threat.

Why Voter Identification Is Important

Posted on by

This is an old story, but it is worth revisiting as the changes to the North Carolina voter id laws are making their way through the courts right now.

In April 2014, PJ Media reported that there was massive voter fraud in North Carolina during the 2012 election. Unfortunately, voter fraud is pretty common in most states. The only real way to stop it is through requiring voter identification. Those who have gained through voter fraud are reluctant to see an identification requirement to vote. There are also some politicians who are currently proposing that we allow noncitizens to vote.

The article at PJ Media reports:

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state, thanks to a 28-state crosscheck of voter rolls. Initial findings suggest widespread election fraud.

  • 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
  • 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
  • 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

So what is the penalty for committing voter fraud? Double voting is election fraud under state and federal statutes. Punishment for double voting in federal elections can include jail time.

The article also reported:

In addition to the above, the crosscheck found that more than 13,000 deceased voters remain on North Carolina’s rolls, and that 81 of them showed voter activity in their records after death.

There is a quote that goes around Facebook periodically, “Grandma voted Republican until the day that she died. After that she voted Democratic.”

If you say that I am being unfair by accusing the Democrats of voter fraud, can you explain to me why the Democrats are the party that has opposed voter identification laws in states where voter fraud exists?

Add This To Your Current List Of Really Bad Ideas

Posted on by

On Friday, The Boston Globe reported that there was a move to draft Michael Dukakis (former Massachusetts Governor) to run for President in 2016. First of all, Michael Dukakis is 81 years old. I thought the Republicans were the party of old white males.

The article reports:

Max Smith, who describes himself as a Democratic activist from Boston, said this is no joke, that there are political donors from Boston and New Hampshire who want to help fund the effort.

“The [State Department] e-mail revelations are going to rock the Hillary Clinton campaign. We need somebody with stability,” said Smith, who is part of the Draft Dukakis campaign.

But the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee told the Globe that another potential Dukakis versus Bush matchup is not in the cards.

“I am absolutely not a candidate for the presidency,” said Dukakis, who is 81. “Kitty and I are supporting Hillary.”

It sounds like Governor Dukakis is more in line with the mainstream Democratic party than the people who are supporting him. His decision not to run is a very intelligent decision. It’s probably the only political thing he has ever done that I wholeheartedly agree with.

When I first saw this article, I checked the source because I didn’t believe it. I still really can’t imagine what a disaster his candidacy would be. I remember him well as the Governor of Massachusetts.

Campaign Financing

Posted on by

When the Citizens United case was decided by the Supreme Court, a howl went up from Democratic politicians. “Take the money out of politics,” they said. “This will open the floodgates for corporations to buy elections.”

I have posted charts from opensecrets.org before. These charts show that the top spenders (before and after Citizens United) are still the unions. No one is talking about taking away the right of unions to donate to campaigns. Also, keep in mind that the people who pay union dues and provide the money for the donations don’t have a say in where the money is donated. At least the leaders of a corporation that donates to a PAC are accountable to their stockholders. The fact that government employee unions give political donations is also a bit questionable–they donate to the people they are going to negotiate contracts with. Is it possible to do that without a conflict of interest?

Any, here is one of the charts from opensecrets.org:

campaigndonationsSo why am I mentioning this? First of all, I firmly believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If unions are allowed to make campaign donations, corporations should also be allowed to make campaign donations. If you want to eliminate one, take them both away. Otherwise, you are creating an unbalanced situation where the government is suppressing free speech.

The National Review is reporting today that according to the Hillary Clinton emails, Mrs. Clinton was planning to reverse the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United as soon as possible.

The article reports:

Although President Obama came out swinging against the decision during his State of the Union address a few day later — prompting some Justices to boycott future speeches — Clinton remained largely silent on the issue for years. She didn’t openly declare her opposition to Citizens United until April 2015, after she’d already announced her candidacy. In May, she said she’d use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for any Supreme Court nominee.

The Ready for Hillary Super PAC — founded under the new Citizens United rules — raised $15 million for the Clinton campaign before it was disbanded early this summer following her presidential announcement.

Mrs. Clinton’s emails to Sidney Blumenthal show a desire to overturn the Citizens United decision, yet she was willing to take advantage of the law up until the time she ran for President. She disbanded the PAC before any low-information voters would learn about it. Also, there is the question of the money flowing through the Clinton Foundation that might have made the PAC unnecessary. Remember that most of the Clintons travel expenses are paid through the Foundation, and a large part of campaigning is travel. That may or may not be illegal, but it is questionable at best. The hypocrisy is amazing.