Monthly Archives: April 2016

Ever Wonder About The People Who Create Holidays?

Posted on by

Townhall.com posted an article today about the founder of Earth Day. The man was seriously into composting.

The article reports:

Ira Einhorn was on stage hosting the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970. Seven years later, police raided his closet and found the “composted” body of his ex-girlfriend inside a trunk.

A self-proclaimed environmental activist, Einhorn made a name for himself among ecological groups during the 1960s and ’70s by taking on the role of a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie. With his long beard and gap-toothed smile, Einhorn — who nicknamed himself “Unicorn” because his German-Jewish last name translates to “one horn” —advocated flower power, peace and free love to his fellow students at the University of Pennsylvania. He also claimed to have helped found Earth Day.

Taking care of the earth is something we should all do every day. I suppose it is nice that we take one day a year and celebrate our home. However, like anything else, taking care of the earth has to be done in a way that respects all aspects of life.

I was at the aquarium with some of my granddaughters yesterday and picked up a book for young readers. It was pure propaganda. Rational human beings need to take over the environmental movement. so far that hasn’t happened.

 

This Used To Be Called Obstruction Of Justice

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and email server. I know everyone is getting sick of this story, but that is by design. The guilty parties in this sordid story have a vested interest in dragging it out until everyone loses interest so that the culprits can go free.

However, the story in the Washington Free Beacon is very relevant to the investigation:

State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year.

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

They said the files had been overlooked by State Department officials because the executive secretary’s office transferred them to another department and flagged them for archiving last April, shortly after receiving a subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

If you believe that these files were accidentally lost, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. You can even have the tolls that are collected. Seriously, this used to be called obstruction of justice. However, it has become routine under the Obama Administration. Note that the files were removed after the congressional subpoena. A charge of obstruction of justice or contempt of Congress would be appropriate. I suspect that neither will occur. This is how you slow-walk an investigation so that by the time the truth comes out, people will be too tired to listen.

The article further reports:

The House Benghazi Committee requested documents from the secretary’s office in a subpoena filed in March 2015. Congressional investigators met with the head of the executive secretary’s office staff to discuss its records maintenance system and the scope of the subpoena last April. That same month, State Department officials sent the electronic folders to another bureau for archiving, and they were not searched in response to the request.

The blunder could raise new questions about the State Department’s records process, which has come under scrutiny from members of Congress and government watchdogs. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasted the State Department’s Freedom of Information Act process as “broken” in January, citing “systematic failures at the agency.”

The inspector general for the State Department also released a report criticizing the agency’s public records process in January. The report highlighted failures in the executive secretary’s office, which responds to records requests for the Office of the Secretary.

I hope that in November the American people will clean house in Washington. This total disregard for the law is not healthy for America.

Overlooking The Obvious

Posted on by

The U.K. Express posted an article yesterday about President Obama’s visit to the United Kingdom. The article included some interesting observations:

The article reports:

But senior Tory Iain Duncan Smith said it was “strange” for the president to advocate a surrender of power to Brussels that Americans would never accept.

The former Cabinet minister said: “I have a huge amount of respect for America’s unrelenting commitment to the patriotic principle of self-governance.

“President Obama and his predecessors have ferociously protected the sovereignty of the USA and I wish we could say the same of our leaders.

“What I do find strange is that he is asking the British people to accept a situation that he patently would not recommend to the American population.”

The former Cabinet minister said: “I have a huge amount of respect for America’s unrelenting commitment to the patriotic principle of self-governance.

“President Obama and his predecessors have ferociously protected the sovereignty of the USA and I wish we could say the same of our leaders.

“What I do find strange is that he is asking the British people to accept a situation that he patently would not recommend to the American population.”

The former Cabinet minister is overlooking one basic fact. Regardless of whether or not President Obama was actually born in America (just for the record, I believe he was), he does not represent the basic values of America. President Obama does not have a lot of respect for American sovereignty. He has allowed the United Nations to dictate American policy regarding refugees from Syria, and he has supported United Nations treaties that would clearly undermine American sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. I think his stand on the United Kingdom and the European Union is perfectly consistent with his core beliefs. Because of the legacy of his father regarding the British, he sees both Britain and America as imperialistic countries. There is nothing in his background that has taught him to respect or value the sovereignty of western countries.

This is another example of President Obama moving away from the friends of America. He has not treated the British with the respect they deserve since he took office. Hopefully the next American President will repair the damage President Obama has done to our relationships with our allies.

Following The Money

Posted on by

Hot Air is reporting today that an Associated Press review of speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton showed that almost all of the companies that paid large fees had lobbied either the Obama Administration or the State Department.

The article reports:

Part of the premise of the AP’s research seems to be that people paying Clinton $200k plus per speech assumed her career in politics was not over when she left the State Department. As the AP puts it, “Their interests would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.”

Clinton has been under pressure to release transcripts of some of her speeches, especially by Bernie Sanders who has made it a regular part of his stump speech. Politico reported in February that Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street firms were nothing unusual but were very positive in a way that might not play well in a Democratic primary.

There is nothing wrong with being well paid for making speeches. However, buying influence is a different matter. I suspect Hillary Clinton is not the only Washington politician guilty of accepting large speaking fees from individuals or corporations attempting to influence policy. However, voters need to ask themselves whether they want to elect someone to the White House who has so obviously abused the system. The Clintons seem to have had the ability to leave the White House ‘broke’ and suddenly have a net worth that should make any Democrat blush. It really is time for them to ride quietly into the sunset.

Be Careful What You Support

Posted on by

Investor’s Business Daily is reporting that a week after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state’s $15 minimum wage boost into law, UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees announcing that 500 jobs were getting cut.

The article reports:

Those workers might want to have a chat with the folks at UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research, who just days before Brown signed the wage-hike bill released a study touting the minimum wage as a boon to low-income household breadwinners.

After that report came out, Ken Jacobs, chairman of the UC Berkeley center, told the Los Angeles Times, “This is a very big deal for low-wage workers in California, for their families and for their children.”

It is a big deal, as well, to those soon to be out of work UC Berkeley workers.

But why is anyone surprised about jobs cuts following a wage hike? It’s one of the most basic laws of economics. Any high school kid taking Econ 101 can explain it:  If you raise the price of something, demand goes down.

Keep in mind, too, that a $15 minimum wage is more than twice the federal minimum wage today. And it would set the wage floor higher than it’s ever been. On an inflation-adjusted basis, the minimum wage peaked in 1968 at just over $10 an hour.

In a strong economy, raising the minimum wage might not be as much of a problem, but in an economy that is not rapidly expanding, companies simply do not have a large enough profit margin to handle the increase in the cost of employees. The demand for an increase in the minimum wage also overlooks the fact that most of the people who hold minimum-wage jobs are people who are just entering the work force. It is in that entry-level job that new employees learn basic skills–such as showing up on time, following directions, being responsible, etc. Those minimum-wage jobs give young people the skills they need to move on to higher-paying jobs. Increasing the minimum wage to the point where there will be less minimum-wage jobs accomplishes nothing positive. Unfortunately, it has become a Democratic policy talking point, and because of that, more young people who support this idea will lose their jobs if they succeed in increasing the minimum wage.

This Isn’t Good For Our Society

Posted on by

Breakpoint posted an article today about the intolerance our culture is currently showing toward those who hold Biblical beliefs.

The article includes a wonderful comment about popular conceptions of open-mindedness:

You’ve seen those ridiculous “Coexist” bumper stickers, right? You know, the ones where the word is spelled out using religious symbols from Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Gay rights, Judaism, and so on?

I call it ridiculous because, as someone once wrote: “The C wants to kill the E, X, T, and the O. The O offers peaceful non-resistance, which will be ineffective if real trouble breaks out. The E feels like it’s been oppressed, making it intolerant of the C, the X, and the T. The I and the S are numerically irrelevant, but are just necessary to spell out the word. And the sticker is mostly directed at the T (or the Christian), who ironically poses no threat whatsoever to any of the others.”

In other words, the “Coexist” bumper sticker slogan assumes that each ideology be emptied of its actual conviction if its to work. And according to Colson Center board member Jennifer Marshall, that’s what big business is currently trying to sell to the American people.

The article points out that those who claim that they are in favor of coexistence are not willing to coexist themselves. A recently-passed Mississippi law allows those who hold Biblical beliefs on homosexuality to refuse to participate in homosexual weddings and to allow their religious convictions determine their rental policies if they are landlords. The law simply prevents discrimination against those who hold Biblical beliefs on matters regarding homosexuality.

The article concludes:

“Mississippi’s policy shows that we can coexist,” Marshall says. “Why would big business oppose that?”

That’s a good question given the number of times large corporate entities have entered these hot debates just in the last few years. Think of all of the corporate-led attacks and blackmail against common-sense religious freedom legislation in Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and now Mississippi. And then think of the bakers, florists, and photographers in places such as New Mexico, Colorado and Washington State who have been forced to choose between their beliefs and ruinous fines forcing them out of business. They were not allowed to co-exist, at least not without compromising their convictions.

As Jennifer Marshall points out, true advocates of cultural coexistence seek conscience protections for all, not just those who adhere to the vision of the sexual revolution. Citing a poll that says 63 percent of state residents support the law, Jennifer writes, “Citizens in Mississippi and elsewhere are looking for solutions that defuse cultural tension over issues of sexual orientation and gender identity . . .The corporate establishment’s campaign against these common sense policies disregards all that. Citizens would do well to see through the big business marketing blitz against religious liberty. This corporate messaging puts neither the common good nor constitutional principle first.”

The First Amendment states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Living life according to your beliefs is one example of the free exercise of your religion. The group shaming of Christian beliefs is not only damaging to our culture, it is unconstitutional.

Hopefully This Testimony Will Be Widely Reported

Posted on by

Today The Daily Signal posted a report about the Congressional hearings about the sale of aborted baby body parts.

According to Wikipedia:

Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about US$528 million in 2014). By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions (except in rare cases), but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services allows other funds to be re-allocated for abortions.

The article at The Daily Signal reports:

Cate Dyer, founder of StemExpress, told The New York Times in July that her company “obtained fetal tissue in accordance with the rules made by ethics boards at the institutions buying it.”

In that article, Dyer also was quoted as saying the process of obtaining fetal cells is “hard,” “expensive,” and takes “millions of dollars of equipment.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America consistently has denied any wrongdoing and was cleared in multiple state investigations. In October, after facing questions about its fetal tissue donation practices, Planned Parenthood announced it would no longer accept any reimbursement as part of its tissue donation program.

During today’s hearing, called “The Pricing of Fetal Tissue,” Republicans were expected to call Brian Patrick Lennon, a former assistant U.S. attorney from Michigan, to testify as a witness.

In his written testimony, released in advance, Lennon argues that based on the evidence, an “ethical federal prosecutor could establish probable cause that both the abortion clinics and the procurement business violated the [federal] statute (42 U.S.C. § 289g-2), aided and abetted one another in violating the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2), and likely conspired together to violate the statute (18 U.S.C. § 371).”

The fact that Planned Parenthood has announced it would no longer accept any reimbursement as part of its tissue donation program is interesting. It would be instructive to take a look at their books to see if that is actually the case. If what they were doing was legal, why would they arbitrarily end the practice after if was exposed?

This is some of the charts from The Daily Signal article:

PlannedParenthood

PlannedParenthood2

This is barbaric. Even the most ardent abortion supporter should look at the sale of aborted baby body parts and wonder where we have gone as a nation.

A Judge’s Ruling That Ignores The Law

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about a recent lawsuit regarding the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. The parents of the children who were killed have sued the manufacturers of the guns used in the shooting.

The article reports:

It is important to remember that the rifle used by Adam Lanza, a semi-automatic AR-15, had been legally bought by his mother, Nancy Lanza. Lanza killed her while she was sleeping before he headed to the elementary school and engaged in his killing spree. In fact, some of the families blamed Nancy Lanza for what happened, saying that she knew about her son’s mental problems and “ignored all the signs” of his “increasing instability.”

The parents subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit in state court against Bushmaster Firearms, Remington Arms, and a host of other firearms manufacturers. The families claim that the manufacturers acted “unethically, oppressively, immorally, and unscrupulously” in marketing the “assaultive qualities and military use of AR-15s to civilian purchasers.”

I don’t mean to be difficult, but the manufacturers had nothing to do with the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The article reports:

Of course, the main problem faced by the plaintiffs is that this lawsuit is absolutely barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCA). The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush to stop these types of emotionally-charged lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Codified at 15 U.S.C. §7901-7903, the Congressional “Findings” specifically state that businesses that manufacture, market, distribute, import or sell firearms should not “be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse” such weapons. Such civil liability lawsuits “may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provides only limited exceptions to this prohibition. One exception is for lawsuits claiming a normal product liability issue, such as the harm caused by a weapon that contained a design or manufacturing defect that caused it to malfunction. Or if the manufacturer deliberately sold the gun to someone who is prohibited from owning a guns—like a felon. Or if the manufacturer encouraged a gun owner to misuse the weapon in a way that led to the harm.

What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School was horrific. A mentally ill young man managed to get hold of a gun and went on a killing spree. Unfortunately, the way our laws are currently written, this was not a preventable crime. The laws that cover committing a person to a mental hospital have gotten complicated, and it was reported that the young man’s mother was attempting to have him hospitalized because of his mental state. Unfortunately, she was not able to complete that complex process before her son killed her. Maybe the answer is a review of our mental health policies–not suing people who are not responsible for the crime.

As Student Loan Debt Increases…

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Attleboro Sun Chronicle posted an editorial about the ‘perks’ many of our college-level administrators and teachers receive. As more money becomes available for student loans, colleges have no reason to cut their costs or seriously consider how they spend their money. The Sun Chronicle pointed out some of the things currently impacting the cost of a college education.

The article reports:

Massachusetts state university costs students around $9,000 a year, or 24 percent less than the average New England private university.

But that could be changing, putting the economic future of many Massachusetts citizens – and the fiscal future of the state as a whole – in jeopardy.

As an example, at Bridgewater State University, which draws scores of undergraduates from the local area, students face a potential $700 increase in student fees next fall, the largest hike since 2007.

Bridgewater State’s board of trustees is already projecting a 4 percent reduction in department budgets alongside the increase in fees, as Sun Chronicle correspondent Kayla Canne noted in an April 9 story.

Since 2007, the state’s Department of Higher Education says, tuition and fees at Bridgewater gradually increased from $5,866 to $8,928.

Part of this is due to the failure of the Legislature to fully fund the state’s higher education budget, particularly the $8 million in union contracts that universities have negotiated with faculty and staff.

But it also makes it all the harder to justify the perks of office handed out to top university administrators.

Dana Mohler-Faria, Bridgewater’s ex-president, cashed in his unused sick and vacation time for a one-time payment of $269,984, accepted a $183,421 annual pension in addition to an annual $100,000 consulting contract with the school. (Mohler-Faria eventually gave up the consulting contract after facing criticism.) His perks were hardly unique, however. A recent story in The Sun Chronicle by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that presidents and other top administrators at public colleges and universities are provided houses, cars, free tuition for their spouses and children, country club dues and other perks. Some are eligible for bonuses of up to $201,000 per year.

Might some of this be responsible for the high cost of a college education? When you consider that the government took over the student loan program during the Obama Administration, leaving the taxpayers on the hook for defaults on college loans, the cost of a college education becomes important to everyone. It’s time for colleges to look at their budgets and consider how they are spending their money.

 

This May Get Very Ugly Very Quickly

Posted on by

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that still have not been released. Did anyone really believe that in the almost 15 years since the attack some of the information in those 28 pages wouldn’t leak out? The question is, “Why are they leaking out now?” In my years of blogging, I have become rather cynical. There will be consequences to the leaking of this information. One consequence will be to make George W. Bush look bad (in an election year), interesting. Another consequence will be to damage our relationship (such as it is) with Saudi Arabia (oddly enough this happens at a time the Obama Administration is cozying up to Iran, the arch enemy of Saudi Arabia). The sword that the Saudis have always held over America’s head is the stability of the U.S. dollar. The Saudis have been the OPEC member that has insisted that oil be traded in American dollars. That is one of the few reasons America’s debt has not collapsed the American economy. Since Congress (and most of our recent Presidents) are responsible for that debt, they have an interest in not collapsing the economy–they would be blamed. Therefore, Washington looks the other way when the Saudis are involved in terrorism–even when the terrorism is aimed at America.

The article at The New York Post reports:

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

…9/11 Commission member John Lehman was interested in the hijackers’ connections to Bandar, his wife and the Islamic affairs office at the embassy. But every time he tried to get information on that front, he was stonewalled by the White House.

“They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman was quoted as saying in the book, “The Commission.”

Did the US scuttle the investigation into foreign sponsorship of 9/11 to protect Bandar and other Saudi elite?

“Things that should have been done at the time were not done,” said Rep. Walter Jones, the North Carolina Republican who’s introduced a bill demanding President Obama release the 28 pages. “I’m trying to give you an answer without being too explicit.”

A Saudi reformer with direct knowledge of embassy involvement is more forthcoming.

“We made an ally of a regime that helped sponsor the attacks,” said Ali al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. “I mean, let’s face it.”

Because of the recent leaks, the release of the 28 pages may be somewhat anti-climatic by the time it happens. I do, however, suspect that there are many less than obvious reasons why President Obama will release these pages (as he has promised to in the next sixty days).

Debunking The Myth Of White Privilege

Posted on by

In recent years there has been talk about ‘white privilege.’ There has also been some talk on college campuses recently about ‘Christian privilege.’ (rightwinggranny.com) I think we are all forgetting some of the basic aspects of ‘privilege.’

In 2012, the Heritage Foundation posted an article about poverty in America. The article was essentially a study of the causes of poverty in America, stating that one of the main causes was the demise of the two-parent family. The article included the following quote:

Historically, the black out-of-wedlock childbearing rate has always been somewhat higher than the white rate; however, through much of the 20th century, the rates for both groups were comparatively low. For example, as Chart 10 shows, 2 percent of white children and 14 percent of black children born in 1940 were born out of wedlock.

These rates remained relatively low until the onset of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in the early 1960s. Then the black out-of-wedlock birth rate skyrocketed, doubling in little more than a decade from 24.5 percent in 1964 to 50.3 percent in 1976. It continued to rise rapidly, reaching 70.7 percent in 1994. Over the next decade, it declined slightly but then began to rise again, reaching 72.3 percent in 2008.

The white out-of-wedlock birth rate followed a similar but less dramatic pattern. It remained almost unchanged at around 2 percent between 1930 and 1960 and then began a slow but steady rise in the 1960s that accelerated in the 1980s, reaching 20 percent by 1990. It slowed in the 1990s but then resumed its upward rise. In recent years, it has been increasing at a rate of 1 percent per annum, reaching 28.6 percent in 2008.

This is the impact of a government program that pays women if there is not a man in the house–there are less men in the house! When the government subsidizes a behavior, there is more of it. When a government taxes a behavior, there is less of it.

whiteprivilegeChildren raised in two-parent, monogamous families do better in school and ultimately achieve more than their contemporaries raised in one-parent homes. There are exceptions–notably Dr. Ben Carson and others.

Until the government stops supporting living arrangements other than marriage, we will continue to have a poverty problem. Until the government stops creating generations of people who have grown up with the idea that they do not have to work for a living, we will have ever-growing welfare rolls. Until the success of welfare programs is measured by how many people leave them and go into the work force, rather than how many more employees are needed to administer them, we will still have growing dependency in black and poor white communities.

White privilege does not exist. It is a term invented to divide people and to discourage people from reaching their full potential. How many great scientists and inventors have we lost because the black culture said it wasn’t cool to study and do well in school? How many brilliant minds have been shamed into not doing well in school because education was ‘a white man’s thing.’ Before you talk about white privilege, teach black children that it is cool to do well in school. Teach the black community to encourage academic success, and encourage those who are successful and involved in the black community to provide scholarship money to students who do achieve, so that they can continue their education.

White privilege is a term that will create problems rather than solve them. It is time we all worked together to make sure all races were privileged by encouraging achievement and bringing back the two-parent family.

Our Relationship With Saudi Arabia Is Getting Complicated

Posted on by

There is a price America pays for not being energy independent. It impacts the cost of living in America, but it also has a very negative impact on our freedom to make decisions about who are friends are around the world. Saudi Arabia is an example of one friend who has done some questionable things. The good thing that the Saudis have been responsible for is making sure oil is traded in American dollars. That is one of a few reasons America has not gone bankrupt. However, the Saudis are also a major player in the Wahabi sect of Islam. This is the sect that was responsible for 9/11 and is a major fund source for mosques and schools in America. There was a recent dust-up in Newton, Massachusetts, about a Saudi-funded social studies program that was teaching things about the Middle East that simply are not true. There are also a lot of questions about what is being taught in Saudi-funded mosques in America.

There are a few recent events that illustrate how complex America’s relationship with the Saudis is. The first event has to do with the families of the victims of 9/11 who want to sue Saudi Arabia as the source of the attack.

The U.K. Daily Mail reports the following:

Officials in Saudi Arabia have reportedly told the Obama administration they will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the September 11 attacks.

The warning was delivered by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month during a visit to Washington, the New York Times reported.

The minister said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy. 

These people play hard ball.

The article cites a New York Times article that states:

The administration has tried to stop Congress from passing the legislation, a bipartisan Senate bill.

Al-Juberi purportedly informed the lawmakers during a trip to Washington that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell a huge chunk of American financial assets on the world market, fearing the legislation could become law and U.S. courts would then freeze the assets.

The Times said Riyadh’s resolve to actually deliver on the threat is dubious, since selling off those assets would be technically challenging and would damage the dollar, against which the Saudi national currency is pegged. 

Under the current US law, foreign nations have a degree of immunity from being sued in American courts.

I don’t agree with The New York Times. I think this move by the Saudis would sink the American economy.

Also keep in mind that there are 28 pages of the 9/11 Congressional investigation that are still secret. Popular wisdom states that those pages have to do with the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11. It will be interesting to see if those pages get released. President Obama has said that he will release them sometime in the next sixty days.

Meanwhile, President Obama has released nine Guantanamo prisoners to Saudi Arabia.

The Hill posted an article yesterday about the release. The article included the following statement by the Pentagon:

“The United States is grateful to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its humanitarian gesture and willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility,” the Pentagon statement said. “The United States coordinated with government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to ensure these transfers took place consistent with appropriate security and humane treatment measures.”

I could fertilize my garden with the above statement. First of all, the Saudi government is not known for its humane treatment of prisoners. Second of all, if Saudi Arabia is interested in closing down Guantanamo, they are interested because they want their terrorists back. This is ridiculous, and it is a shame that the Pentagon has been politicized under President Obama to the point where they would make that statement.

The main job of  a government is to keep its people safe. It seems as if that is the only job the Obama Administration is not interested in doing.

 

 

College Administrators Have Lost Their Minds

Posted on by

American universities have hit a new level of absurdity. Hot Air posted an article yesterday about some recent rulings by the administration of DePaul University.

The article reports:

At DePaul University in Chicago, students will soon be able to perambulate around the quad without fear of such lasting mental scar tissue because the university has banned chalking the sidewalks after someone was tasteless enough to write the name of Donald J. Trump on the pavement.

This is ridiculous. College is supposed to be a place where young people learn to evaluate different ideas and reach conclusions that will help them become the leaders of their generation.

The article quotes another article:

DePaul University will no longer allow students to chalk political messages on the sidewalks of its campus because of the “offensive, hurtful, and divisive” nature of pro-Trump chalking found on campus last week.

“While these chalk messages are part of national agendas in a heated political battle, they appeared on campus at a time of significant racial tension in our country and on college campuses. DePaul is no exception,” Depaul’s vice president for student affairs Eugene Zdziarski wrote in a campus-wide email obtained by Campus Reform…

Campus Reform reached out to DePaul to ask why university officials chose to respond to this particular chalking instance despite claims that chalking “regularly” occurs on campus. No response was received in time for publication.

So much for freedom of speech on college campuses. How do we expect to teach college students about the Constitution when we are not even upholding the First Amendment on college campuses?

 

Inconsistent Bullies

Posted on by

Breitbart.com posted an article yesterday about some further ripples in the battle over who gets to use the bathrooms in North Carolina. As previously stated, all that North Carolina HB2 did was to put the laws back the way they were before the City of Charlotte messed with them. Many of the concerts and other entertainment items that are cancelling now because of HB2 booked the events when the laws in North Carolina were the same as they are now. The law passed in Charlotte was the exception–not the rule. It was an interruption–what is now is the same as what was before Charlotte. So if the law was okay when the event was booked, why is it not okay now–the law is the same? It only gets worse.

The article at Breitbart reports:

Canada-based circus and theater entertainment company Cirque du Soleil has canceled its upcoming shows in Greensboro, Charlotte, and Raleigh in North Carolina to protest the state’s Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.

…The world-famous circus, however, has not canceled its upcoming performances in the United Arab Emirates of Dubai.

Indeed, Cirque du Solei has a planned production, Varekai, scheduled to run from September 16 to 24 at the Dubai World Trade Centre. The United Arab Emirates of Dubai has outlawed same-sex marriage, sex or gender reassignment surgery, adoption by same-sex couples, openly gay and lesbian military service, with the aforementioned being punishable by death, fines, or imprisonment.

I need someone to explain the logic of this to me. I don’t see it.

The article concludes:

In fact, Cirque du Solei has performed for years in the anti-LBGT United Arab Emirates, including Michael Jackson: The Immortal Tour in 2014, Dralion in 2013, Alegria in 2009, and Quidam in 2006.

“Over the past years, Cirque du Soleil has had shows in various countries such as United Arab Emirates,” the Cirque du Solei website proudly states.

While calling North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act “an important regression to ensuring human rights for all,” it’s unclear if Cirque du Soleil plans to cancel its upcoming shows in nations that put homosexuals to death.

As one person posted on Facebook:

bathroombillpicture

The Double Standard At Work

Posted on by

From Twitter:

bathroombillLet that sink in a minute. Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, and a few other celebrities have decided to boycott North Carolina because of House Bill 2, which says that men should use men’s bathrooms and women should use women’s bathrooms. That is their privilege. However, if they have the privilege of doing business (or not doing business) with whomever they choose based on whatever reason, do Christians have to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding? Do they have to host a homosexual wedding? Do Christians have the same freedom of association that Michael Moore and other celebrities do?

More Free Stuff The Taxpayers Can Pay For

Posted on by

Congratulations. Today is April 15th, Income Tax day. Tax Freedom Day this year is April 24th. Tax Freedom Day is the day Americans stop working to pay the government and begin working to pay themselves. The tax code has become so ridiculous that many Americans use a computer program or an accountant to file their taxes. TurboTax and other tax services profit mightily because of our ridiculous tax system. The Tax Code is a tribute to the lobbying efforts of special interests. It is the crowning achievement of the Washington establishment.

Meanwhile, Washington wants to make it better. The American Thinker posted an article today stating that Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to make filing your taxes free for Americans.

The article reports:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for tax software. She has the support of other liberal Democrats. She has introduced a bill that would require the IRS to make available a “free” online filing option to some taxpayers. She doesn’t mention that taxpayers will have to pay for the development and continuing maintenance of this system through higher taxes. So it won’t be free. Rather it will be a system the cost of which is hidden in the fine print of the federal budget. Never mind that TurboTax and other software companies now offers a no-cost option for a majority of taxpayers. Sen. Warren says TurboTax keeps it secret: a secret known only to the 3 million people who use it and to millions of others who know about it but choose not to use it. The IRS website has a direct link to the free software. The various software companies also have links from their websites. Wouldn’t it be simple if Sen. Warren were to promote the existing free system? Who believes that a system developed by the IRS would be easier to use?

At least TurboTax and other private businesses have an interest in protecting the taxpayers’ identity. Recent testimony on Capitol Hill indicates that the federal government is not doing a very good job of that.

The article concludes:

Senator Warren also wants the IRS to send some taxpayers a “completed” federal return which the taxpayers can sign and file. You can be sure that there will be no promise that the taxpayers who accept this option will be exempt from subsequent audits that can lead to additional taxes, penalties, and even prison. Who believes that the IRS will work to minimize the taxes on the returns it prepares? Will the IRS encourage contributions to Individual Retirement Accounts? Will the IRS help taxpayers avoid ever increasing penalties imposed on taxpayers by ObamaCare? Will the IRS recommend investing in tax-exempt bonds to save taxes? What about itemized deductions?

I don’t think anyone believes that the IRS will adapt to a role where it advocates for taxpayers in place of its traditional role of tax enforcer and collector.

When will Americans learn that nothing from the government is free? The government has no money except that which it takes from Americans. We need to realize that before we are totally bankrupt.

Maybe It’s Time No One Paid For This Junk

Posted on by

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today about a recent “Working Glossary of Terms” put out by the University of Washington. In this exercise in absurdity, the students are asked to identify themselves by gender. When you look at the list of options, male and female are not included. Instead, students are given the option of “Cisgender,” meaning “describes someone who feels comfortable with the gender identity and gender expression expectations assigned to them based on their physical sex.” Wow. I never realized that my gender was assigned. I never realized I had an option. Does this mean that my husband could have done the pregnancies? It would have been much easier–he has a cast iron stomach.

Some of the students answered the question with the terms ‘male’ or ‘female,’ which were considered microaggressive terms (the students obviously had more brains than the administrators).

This is the response from the administration:

UnivWashParents, what are you paying for? I wonder how many parents have any idea what is being done to their children in the name of education.

 

The Pig Book Summary Is Out

Posted on by

Every year Citizens Against Government Waste puts out a Congressional Pig Book Summary. The book summarizes the wasteful spending by Congress.

Here is an explanation of how programs are chosen for the honor of being in the book:

The projects in the 2016 Congressional Pig Book Summary symbolize the most blatant examples of pork. As in previous years, all items in the Congressional Pig Book meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

  • Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
  • Not specifically authorized;
  • Not competitively awarded;
  • Not requested by the President;
  • Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
  • Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
  • Serves only a local or special interest.

Some examples:

$10,000,000 for high energy cost grants within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The RUS grew out of the remnants of the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Electrification Administration (REA) of the 1930s. The primary goal of the REA was to promote rural electrification to farmers and residents in out-of-the-way communities where the cost of providing electricity was considered to be too expensive for local utilities. By 1981, 98.7 percent electrification and 95 percent telephone service coverage was achieved. Rather than declaring victory and shutting down the REA, the agency was transformed into the RUS, and expanded into other areas.

…$60,000,000 for construction of research facilities at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). According to the legislation, the funding is to initiate “the design and renovation of its outdated and unsafe radiation physics infrastructure in fiscal year 2016.” Though the legislation does not designate a location for the funding, NIST’s Radiation Physics Division operates facilities in Boulder, Colorado, and Gaithersburg, Maryland.

…$1,150,800,000 for 28 earmarks for health and disease research under the Defense Health Program, which is a 7.8 percent increase in cost over the 27 earmarks worth $1,067,115,000 in FY 2015. Former Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) November 2012 report, The Department of Everything, pointed out that the DOD disease earmarks added by Congress mean that “fewer resources are available for DOD to address those specific health challenges facing members of the armed forces for which no other agencies are focused.” According to the report, in 2010 the Pentagon withheld more than $45 million for overhead related to earmarks, which means those funds were unavailable for national security needs or medical research specifically affecting those serving in the military.

These are only a few examples from the book. The book is available online or to download. The next time Congress complains that it cannot cut the budget, take a look at this book.

Why Abortion Laws Matter

Posted on by

The American Center for Law and Justice posted an article today about Indiana’s new law about abortion. I am going to post most of the article because it is so beautifully stated.

The article states:

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky joined with the ACLU to sue the state of Indiana over a recent law passed to prohibit abortions based only on the unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or disability, including Down Syndrome.

Claiming that the bill places an undue burden on women seeking an abortion and violates patients’ privacy rights, Planned Parenthood is once again challenging a common sense state law intended to protect the health and safety of women and children. Why? Because abortion is how Planned Parenthood makes money, even if that means standing up for the targeted and systematic elimination of innocent children with disabilities like Down Syndrome.

Governor Pence released the following statement:

I believe that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable—the aged, the infirm, the disabled and the unborn. HEA 1337 will ensure the dignified final treatment of the unborn and prohibits abortions that are based only on the unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or disability, including Down syndrome.

Some of my most precious moments as Governor have been with families of children with disabilities, especially those raising children with Down syndrome. These Hoosiers never fail to inspire me with their compassion and these special children never fail to move me with their love and joy.

By enacting this legislation, we take an important step in protecting the unborn, while still providing an exception for the life of the mother. I sign this legislation with a prayer that God would continue to bless these precious children, mothers and families.

The article includes the following story:

I’m proud of Governor Pence and the representatives in Indiana. When he talks about families of children with disabilities, he’s talking about families like mine.

My sister, Mary Rose, was born in the late summer of 1989, exactly six weeks before I turned three. Months after she was born, it became clear that Mary was special – different from normal babies. While the diagnoses, tests, and many in the world would assess that Mary is ‘mildly to moderately retarded,’ ‘developmentally delayed/disabled,’ or ‘slower than normal kids,’ it is clear to anyone who encounters Mary that she was a gift from God, placed on earth to teach us all the true definition of unconditional love.

Although Mary doesn’t have Down Syndrome, many of her closest friends do. Others, including Mary, have similar genetic abnormalities that cause developmental delays. Although national research isn’t comprehensive, many studies reveal that somewhere between 80 and 95% of unborn babies with a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome are aborted.

More than 4 in 5 unborn babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are murdered simply because they have an extra chromosome. These children are never given the chance to show the world just how much potential they have.

Some mothers who are pressured to abort their child with Down Syndrome have refused, and the hearts of their communities are forever changed once their child is born.

But more often than not, those lives are lost forever. My heart breaks every time I hear these statistics because I know just how incredible these children are. I’m an example of a life forever changed because of their lives. I know from first hand experience just how much the world is losing every time a child is aborted because they have a disability.

Mary is the perfect example of this. Though not being academically “smart,” she’s more insightful and emotionally intuitive than most people I know. Though Mary may never discover a world-changing innovation, she is never forgotten by all who encounter her. Mary has a zest for life rooted in her ability to appreciate every person and opportunity that comes her way, and her inability to focus on tedious, superfluous details. She reminds us all of the childlike faith we once had.

Mary and her extraordinary friends have shaped the man I am today. Because of Mary, I always speak up for the underdog, squirming when I feel someone is unrightfully judging me or someone else. Because of Mary, I try to look past first judgments and impressions, and empathize with people I meet and situations I encounter. Because of Mary, I thirst for justice and appreciation of all human beings, no matter how diverse or different. Because of Mary, I recognize the incredible ways that the Lord uses His children whom the world labels as “slow”, “useless”, or “not viable” to show us His unfailing and unconditional love.

And because of Mary, I’m thankful for Gov. Pence and other leaders around the country who fight for laws to protect those with disabilities – to give them protection under the law.

When Planned Parenthood and its abortion allies sue to stop these laws, we all must realize they’re suing to end lives like those of Mary and her friends.

They think they’re on the right side of history. I wish they’d meet Mary so they know how very wrong they are.

This is the reason we need to take the profit out of the abortion industry. Abortion is a multi-million dollar industry, and because of the money involved, the industry wields a tremendous amount of political clout. All of us need to back up and think about what the abortion industry is about and whether or not we want the government to support it. It is time for all of us to rethink all of our abortion laws and move to make abortion something that is only done when absolutely necessary. We also need to reach out to those women who have had abortions and help them deal with the scars.

 

How To Pass A Minimum Wage Hike Without Hiking Minimum Wage

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today about the recent fight in California to pass an increase in the minimum wage. Unions and business owners are supporting the increase. Each have their own reasons.

Under the new law, hotels that are unionized don’t have to increase their wages. Hotels that are open shops have to follow the law and increase wages. So a union hotel employee who pays $56.50 every month for membership in the hotel workers union does not get a raise, while his non-union equivalent gets a pay raise.

The article concludes:

The raison d’etre of unions is supposedly to arrange better conditions, compensation and benefits for their members, so why they would agree to that deal doesn’t jump out at you. But the reality is that not all of the hotels are unionized. The ones who run open shops fall under the new arrangement and have to pay their workers significantly higher wages. So how do they get out of this sudden spike in labor costs which could put them at a disadvantage with their competitors? (Cue the Jeopardy music…)

They can just unionize their work force.

It’s really a genius maneuver if you think about it. Getting a raise for some of the workers in the city who already belong to your union doesn’t really translate into that much more money in dues because they only collect a small percentage of the increase. But if you can suddenly enlist the workers at a whole raft of new businesses into your organization you get a piece of all their paychecks. It’s the perfect plan, really.

Of course, the people who get left out in the cold are the actual members of the union, particularly once they find out what’s going on. But that was never the real objective of the union in modern times anyway. What’s critical is enlisting as much of the workforce as possible and keeping the cash flowing in so they can continue to fund the political campaigns of Democrats.

It pays to read laws carefully and look at who is supporting them. In this case, those in the unions who have worked to pass the law assumed that they would gain by its passage. Those in the upper levels of the union had another idea. They supported a law that would cost union shops less while potentially increasing the number of union shops. This is only one example of the damage that the alliance of unions and politicians can do.

The Obama Administration’s War On Guns

Posted on by

The Daily Signal posted an article today about the efforts of Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah to unravel the government’s Operation Choke Point.

The article reports:

“Under President Obama’s reign, the DOJ has abandoned its longstanding tradition of staying out of politics and has instead become a partisan arm of the White House,” Cruz said. “The Obama administration initiated Operation Choke Point to punish law-abiding small businesses that don’t align with the president’s political leanings. The DOJ should not be abusing its power by trying to bankrupt American citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.”

The bill, called the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, bans federal agencies that oversee banks from requesting or ordering banks to terminate customer accounts “unless the regulator has material reason.”

The measure also requires banking regulators to put in writing any “formal or informal” requests for account termination, and requires those regulators to file an annual report to Congress regarding those requests. To scale back Operation Choke Point or any similar initiatives, the bill also amends the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.

I have written articles about the impact of Operation Choke Point before. You can use the search engine at the top of the page to find them. Operation Choke Point is an obvious example of government overreach. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and the government has no right to interfere with that right. Operation Choke Point is one of several back door methods the Obama Administration used to attempt to take guns away from lawful gun owners. Had they come up with a plan to take guns away from unlawful gun owners, I might have been willing to listen.

The article further reports:

An identical version of the bill passed the House of Representatives 250-169 in February with bipartisan support.

According to government documents, Operation Choke Point was designed by the Justice Department in 2012 to “attack Internet, telemarketing, mail, and other mass market fraud against consumers, by choking fraudsters’ access to the banking system.”

The Justice Department carried out the program by using its investigative powers and partnering with federal regulating agencies such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that provide formal guidance to banks.

Since the program’s inception, many gun sellers, pawn shops, and short-term lenders reported their bank accounts being shut down.

…If the bill passes the Senate, it will then head to Obama’s desk for approval.

Hopefully one of the first things the next President will do (regardless of who is elected) will be to cut back on some of the abuses of power that have gone on during the Obama Administration.