Monthly Archives: June 2016

Things I Needed To Learn

Posted on by

As a relatively new resident of North Carolina, I was very uneducated in the gun culture in this state. Everyone seems to have a gun and go shooting periodically. I am working to correct my ignorance and learn about guns and gun safety, but it is going to take me a while to catch up. Meanwhile, I have gotten some help from a friend on Twitter.

Here are some excerpts from a post of Twitter about assault rifles:

The AR-15 rifle is the most popular rifle sold in America today.

Sometimes the AR-15 is incorrectly called an ‘assault rifle.’ Prior to 1989, the term “assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of “assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle. It is also an assault rifle. It is fully automatic–it fires multiple rounds. It is also sometimes called a machine gun. In 1986, the Federal government banned the sale or transfer of new machine guns to civilians.

The AR-15 is semi-automatic (like most guns sold in America). That means that when you pull the trigger, one round is fired.

According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby: “Handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons … are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

The article goes on to explain that since machine guns were already banned, so the anti-gun lobby began a campaign to convince the public that the semi-automatic guns were machine guns. This was relatively easy to do because of public ignorance and because of the military look of some of these guns.

The article further explains:

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:

[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

The end game of some of those in power is to take the Second Amendment rights away from Americans. After the Orlando shooting, there will be more cries for gun control. Where are the cries for better investigations of people making inflammatory statements about murdering people in the name of Islam? The problem in Orlando was not the gun.

This Is What We Are Up Against

Posted on by

This article is not a joke. I found it in a number of places. The source I have chosen to use is World News Daily Report.

World News Daily Report posted an article on June 7 that included the following:

Riyadh | In an unprecedented ruling, a panel of Saudi scientists has concluded that women are actually mammals, granting them the same rights as other mammal species such as camels, dromedaries and even goats.

The verdict, which fell just hours before the International Women’s Day, is considered “historic” by some experts and advocacy groups for women’s rights.

“This is a great leap forward for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia,” concludes Jane Austin, spokeswoman for the Women’s Liberation Action Network. “It may seem too little, too late, but it is truly a milestone event for all women in the region,” she says, visibly excited. “From now on, women will be considered as members of the mammal class, whereas before women shared the legal status of an object, similar to that of a home appliance,” she admits.

It is good to know that if I were ever to travel to Saudi Arabia, I would not be valued on the same level as a home appliance.

The article further reports:

The recent verdict could completely upset all laws currently enforced in Saudi Arabia believes Jillian Birch, spokeswoman at Amnesty International.

“This verdict shows the incredible progress the women’s rights movement has made in the past 50 years,” she admitted in a press conference this morning. “Finally, women will no longer be simply considered as objects without souls, but as full-fledged mammals, with the same rights as other animals of their species such as camels and goats,” she said, visibly emotional. “Women are still far from being considered 100% human, but their condition will improve drastically with this decision,” she firmly believes.

The fact that women “are still far from being considered 100% human” tells you all you need to know.

As the percentage of Muslims increases in America, there will be more pressure put on American lawmakers to institute Sharia Law. Sharia Law is NOT compatible with the U.S. Constitution ( which our lawmakers have taken an oath to uphold). Sharia Law is not some harmless thing that can be put in place to make Muslims feel more at home. Sharia Law includes honor killings, female genital mutilation, discrimination against women, killing infidels, killing homosexuals, and having multiple wives–just to name a few items that might be a problem.

The article concludes:

“It could create significant turmoil in the current legal state of affairs and the judiciary system of Saudi Arabia,” says political analyst specialized in the Middle East, Anthony Bochstein. “If before women had the same rights as a chair or a table and were seen more as individual property, they now have an equivalent status to certain animal species, and thus must receive, at the very least, feeding, watering and be conferred a minimum of attention and respect, which was not the case previously,” he explains.

According to the expert panel that ruled on the matter, women are still devoid of a soul but have been shown to possess qualities common to the mammal species, which would explain their ability to procreate and breastfeed, as well as why they are equipped with seven cervical vertebrae, a characteristic unique to the mammal species.

Thanks a lot.

The Blood of Lambs

Posted on by

Occasionally I do I book review on this site. This is one. The book is The Blood of Lambs by Kamal Saleem. It is the autobiography of a former terrorist. Mr. Saleem now speaks out about what he learned as a child at his mother’s knee.

The story reveals the linkage between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Fatah, and other groups that practice terrorism. The book was published in 2009, and Mr. Saleem’s exit from terrorism took place long before that, so ISIS is not a significant player in the book.

In reading the book, I learned that the Muslim Brotherhood in Lebanon during the 1960’s and 1970’s functioned very much like the Mafia in some American cities during that time. They protected people they found useful and trained their young as ruthless fighters (not revealing to them that although their leaders talked of martyrdom, the leaders were not particularly interested in practicing it). It becomes very clear as you read this book that the young children (approximately ages 7 to 15) were expendable in the cause of advancing Islam.

The book provides tremendous insight into how a young man becomes a ruthless killer. It is not accidental. In the past on this blog I have posted articles (here and here) about the indoctrination of young children into terrorism. Mr. Saleem’s book is an amazing chronicle of how this process works.

The good news in this book is that Mr. Saleem has had a life-changing experience that brought him out of terrorism, and he now speaks openly about the danger to America terrorism represents. I strongly encourage anyone who has any interest in terrorism to read this book. It is a first-hand account of how terrorists are created.

Houston, We Have A Problem…

Posted on by

Newsmax posted an article today about the number of ISIS terror attacks thwarted this year in the United States.

The House Homeland Security Committee has the following map posted on their website:

TerrorThreat3TerrorThreat2This is not comforting.

Newsmax reports:

And a year after the U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes against ISIS, they “have largely failed,” according to the monthly “Terror Report Snapshot” released Tuesday by the Republican members of the House Homeland Security Committee.

…Here are some other facts from the report:

  • Since 2014, ISIS has been linked to 14 terrorism plots and 63 arrests or indictments in the U.S.
  • Since early 2014, the majority of jihadist plots in the U.S. have included plans to kill police or U.S. soldiers.
  • Islamic State terrorists have inspired or directed 55 terrorist plots or attacks against the West by the end of July, including 14 in the United States.
  • Nearly twice as many ISIS-linked plots have occurred against the West so far this year — 35 — than in all of last year, which had 20.

What happened in Florida was the result of the Koran’s teaching about homosexuality. In countries ruled by Sharia Law, homosexuals are routinely thrown off of buildings with their hands tied. Execution is seen as the appropriate punishment for homosexuality under Sharia Law.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported:

Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled nearly 30,000 Afghan migrants on green cards. According to Pew, nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) support sharia law as official law.

As legal immigrants, these migrants will be granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States.

In the next five years, without changes to our autopilot visa dispensations, the U.S. will permanently resettle a Muslim population larger than the entire population of Washington D.C.

Islam as practiced according to the Koran is not a religion of peace. There are peaceful Muslims, but they are afraid to speak out about what is going on in many of the mosques. The Obama Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye to what is happening in our mosques. Have you ever wondered how small Islamic communities have the money to build large Islamic centers and mosques? Many of them are funded through the Islamic Society of North America (named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial) or funded indirectly through Saudi Arabia (the country that financed the 911 hijackers). Western civilization is under attack. Both the Sunni and Shiite Muslims want to set up a worldwide caliphate run by Sharia Law. Their only disagreement is about who will control the caliphate and where it will be headquartered. It is time for America (and the rest of western civilization) to wake up and pay attention.

Thoughts On Orlando From Ambassador John Bolton

Posted on by

Ambassador John Bolton has long been a voice of reason in speaking about the war on terror.

Today Fox News posted some of his comments on the killings in Orlando, Florida, yesterday. Here are a few of the comments:

Beyond the human cost, however, also lies the tragedy that Barack Obama, speaking even as it became clear that the murderer was a radical Islamic terrorist, is still unable or unwilling to draw the appropriate conclusions. The president’s remarks omitted any linkages between the cold-blooded murders, the terrorist’s ideology, and the broader international threat that motivated the Orlando killer and perhaps others yet unknown.

We will, in the coming days, doubtless hear that the terrorist was a lone wolf, that he did not belong to any known terrorist organization, that there are no wider threats.  In particular, those who are blind to the terrorist threat will downplay even the incontrovertible fact that Mateen pledged loyalty to ISIS as he committed his murders.

...First, the number of true “lone wolf” terrorists is infinitesimal.  The implications of that phrase, namely that terrorism is not a widespread and still-growing phenomenon, are profoundly impairing our ability to protect innocent civilians. Terrorists like Mateen are not “one offs” who emerge randomly, unexpectedly and inexplicably, perhaps victims of mental disorders. The evidence is now indisputable that we are confronting a far larger threat, albeit not one organized conveniently for our understanding.  This threat is unmistakably ideological, as Sunday’s Orlando attack and the apparently thwarted attack in Santa Monica demonstrate.

…Second, the United States must urgently discard the fiction that we pay no price for not pursuing international terrorists vigorously and relentlessly. President Obama’s strategy against terrorist bases of operation, when it is evident at all, has been lackadaisical and offhanded.  There is a clear rationale to this casualness. Obama manifestly believes that, as bad as terrorist attacks are, American “overreaction” is worse.  In his view, the use of U.S. forces risks increasing the problem rather than reducing it, making us much a part of the problem as the terrorist threat itself.

Sharia Law demands the killing of homosexuals. As America allows more Muslims into the country who support Sharia Law, we can expect to see more killings. The Muslims who believe in Sharia Law feel that it is a religious obligation to kill homosexuals. What happened in Orlando yesterday has nothing to do with guns or politics–it has to do with the tenets of the Muslim faith. Until we wake up and pay attention to the threat among us, we will continue to see more of these attacks.

Britain And The European Union

Posted on by

On June 23, Britain will vote on whether or not to remain in the European Union. Argument can be made for both sides of the issue, but I would like to cite a few in favor of leaving.

A New York Times article on June 2 stated the following:

Jackie O’Neill, a 54-year-old administrative assistant, was explaining the other day why Britain should vote to divorce itself from the European Union in this month’s referendum. As she enumerated her many grievances, I couldn’t help thinking of the scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” in which a bunch of disaffected Judeans sit around, complaining about the Romans.

“They’ve bled us white, the bastards,” says their leader, Reg, played by John Cleese. “And what have they ever given us in return?” His colleagues mention a few things, by way of example.

O.K., Reg says. “But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the freshwater system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

Today Clarice Feldman posted an article at The American Thinker explaining why she thinks Britain should leave the European Union.

Here are some of the highlights from The American Thinker article:

Here and in Britain voters are torn as to whether or not to jump off the globalization, open borders bandwagon and government by unelected bureaucrats or voting to retake sovereignty and re-establish free markets. The polls show the sentiments for retaining the status quo or starting over (Brexit) seem too close to call, I predict Britain will leave. I hope we, too, will choose to return to less intrusive more accountable government, sovereignty and freedom by rejecting  Hillary Clinton ourselves.

…Europeans seem to be overly attracted to the notion of government by wiseman elites. British love of independence and freedom is deeper and stronger, although government regulation and control took root during the World War I and that increased even more during World War II — power the government didn’t relinquish when the war was over. This softened their resolve when the notion of the EU was hatched.

The article concludes with a very good description of what is at stake in the Brexit vote:

One thing is clear — both the EU officialdom and ours are wiser than voters only in their ability to feather their own nests, not in making us safer, richer, or happier. Many predict that if the UK exists Brexit, other European countries will follow, Maybe one of the attractions of Trump is that the distaste for the regulatory state run by elites is spreading across the Atlantic.

The British will decide this month whether or not they want to be an independent country. Americans will have a chance in November to decide whether they want more of the government they have now or to vote for someone who at least has a possibility of shrinking government and government regulations. A rich man has no reason to try to use the government as his own blank check–lavish vacations, bending laws to his advantage, government subsidies for business of friends, etc. Unfortunately we have seen in the history of the Clinton family a willingness to do anything to increase their own personal wealth. November will be the time for Americans to choose between these two personal histories.

I Guess Representative Joe Wilson Was Right

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner reported today that California will ask for a waiver to cover illegal aliens under ObamaCare.

A Politico article posted last July explains how this works:

The California bill wouldn’t immediately open the state’s exchange to undocumented immigrants, who are primarily Latino. Instead, it would direct California to seek permission from the federal Department of Health and Human Services through an Obamacare waiver program that allows states to shape their own health care reforms.

However, the administration hasn’t spelled out the guidelines for the “state innovation waivers” program, which doesn’t start until 2017, and it’s unclear whether the White House would rethink its Obamacare coverage ban for undocumented immigrants. An HHS spokesperson said the department hasn’t discussed the California proposal with state officials and declined to comment on the bill.

Note that the waiver program was already built into the law. The Republicans in Congress have believed from the beginning of ObamaCare that the Democrat’s plan was to cover illegal aliens.

Wikipedia reminds us of an event that underlined that point:

On September 9, 2009, Wilson shouted at President Barack Obama while Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to outline his proposal for reforming health care.[35] During his address, Obama said: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”[36] In a breach of decorum,[37] Wilson pointed at Obama and shouted, “You lie!” twice.[38][39][40][41] Wilson attracted national and international attention for the incident.[42][43] He said afterwards that his outburst reflected his view that the bill would provide government-subsidized benefits to illegal immigrants.[44]

Then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel immediately approached senior Republican lawmakers and asked them to identify the heckler and urge him to apologize immediately.[45] Members of Congress from both parties condemned the outburst. “Totally disrespectful”, said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) of Wilson’s utterance. “No place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately.”[46][47] Wilson said later in a statement:

This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.[48]

Obama later accepted Wilson’s apology. “I’m a big believer that we all make mistakes”, he said. “He apologized quickly and without equivocation and I’m appreciative of that.”[49]

What Joe Wilson did was a total breach of decorum, but he was the only one in the room telling the truth to the American people. It is obvious that the President was lying and the Congressman was telling the truth.

 

Coming To An American City Near You

Posted on by

Breitbart posted an article today that illustrates the impact that a large number of Muslim immigrants can have on the legal system of their host country.

The article reports:

A regional German court has recognised as valid the marriage of a 14-year-old Syrian girl to her 20-year-old cousin, despite the legal age for marriage in Germany being 16. The case represents a landmark ruling, with the Federal Court set to adjudicate on the implications for the country as a whole.

Among the hundreds of thousands of migrants arriving in European countries over the eighteen months have been a number of underage wives, some as young as eleven, others already mothers. But although most European countries stipulate that a girl must be 16 to marry, the authorities seem unsure what to do with young bride migrants.

When you consider the fact that some of the Islamic marriages can involve a forty-year-old man and his ten-year-old bride, this is somewhat disconcerting.

The article further reports:

Robin Classen of the Criticising Immigration blog has called the verdict a “scandal”, highlighting that the judge “openly and completely uncritically quoted sharia law, applying it directly to this case.

“Therefore ‘only a marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim is void,’ in the judge’s own words, because Islamic law forbids this.”

Mr. Classen argues that the case is a prime example of Germany importing a foreign culture through mass migration.

“With mass immigration has come not only the sort of terrorism seen in Paris and Brussels and the sexual offences of New Year’s Eve, but also a completely different set of social values ideas,” he says.

“Mohammed married his ‘favourite wife’ Aisha when she was just six years old. He first had intercourse with her when she was nine. This is not a minor opinion within Islam, within Sunni and Shi’ite Islam it is absolutely undisputed.

“Since Mohammed is considered in Islam as an exemplary and virtuous man, this moral assessment also applies to his marriages with several women and the child Aisha, which is why forced marriages of children are completely normal in both Shi’ite and Sunni Islam.”

This is not encouraging.

Sometimes It Is Totally Amazing What Makes The News And What Doesn’t!

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted a story today about an Iranian judge barred from hearing immigration cases involving Iranians. The story is not a new story, but somehow it wasn’t widely reported in the press at the time it happened.

The article reports:

In 2015, immigration Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor sued the United States Department of Justice after it forced her to recuse herself from “all immigration cases involving Iranians.”

According to reporting from NPR, Obama’s DOJ first became “concerned with the appearance of impropriety” after Tabaddor — who is of Iranian descent — attended a 2012 White House meeting with other high-profile Iranian-Americans.

Sometimes I am simply amazed at the things that the mainstream media reports and the things that the mainstream media doesn’t report.

The End Of Free Speech On The Internet

Posted on by

Investor’s Business Daily reported yesterday on the plan to hand control of the internet over to the United Nations. That’s the same United Nations that includes a voting bloc of fifty-seven Muslim nations (Organization of Islamic Cooperation-OIC) that has been attempting to alter the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make it a crime to criticize Islam. Can you imagine what speech laws the United Nations could come up with if they had control of the internet?

The article reports:

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Commerce Department, has given its stamp of approval to transfer oversight to a little-known, but mighty, Los Angeles-based private nonprofit group called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.

…The internet is one of the few places where, with some notable exceptions, free speech still reigns supreme. If some of the rest of that “multistakeholder community” doesn’t like that, what’s to keep it from exerting enormous pressure on ICANN to regulate away free exchange on the internet?

To keep this from happening, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (You wondered what he was up to since he stopped his campaign? Now you know.) and Wisconsin Sen. Sean Duffy have introduced a bill to halt transferring the internet domain name system away from the U.S. government unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.

There is also the matter of fees.

The article further reports:

Nor is this solely about freedom of speech. ICANN already charges fees to users. What happens when it’s free to raise fees with no oversight?

As Rick Manning of Americans For Limited Government noted recently, “nonprofit” ICANN had $219 million in revenue last year. When other countries gain clout, “it is guaranteed that they will seek to grab the pot of gold through a U.N. structure that would more directly benefit them and increase their power.”

Hopefully Ted Cruz’s bill will pass and keep the internet free from speech codes and increased fees.

Things We Should Learn From The Terrorist Attack In Tel Aviv

Posted on by

The Jewish News Service posted an article today about the attack in Tel Aviv last night. The article highlights five myths about terrorist attacks in Israel that are simply not true.

These are the myths that the attack has shattered:

Myth #1: “The problem is the settlements” – Tel Aviv is neither disputed nor a settlement.

Myth #2: “It was a reaction to the occupation” – the village of Yatta, the home of the attackers, has been under the rule of the Palestinian Authority for nearly 21 years.

Myth #3: “The Palestinian Authority condemned the attack” – the PA stated:

“We condemn violence and attacks against civilians on both sides, whatever the justification.” The PA “not only condemned the attack in south Tel Aviv early on Monday morning, but also the recent Israel Defense Forces strikes on Gaza, and attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank and in Jerusalem,” according to Israel’s Channel 10 television network.

Fatah, which is chaired by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, explicitly defended the massacre. According to the Palestinian news agency Ma’an, Fatah issued a statement calling the attack “a natural response” to Israeli actions.

Myth #4: “Ordinary Palestinians are against terrorism” – In Ramallah, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Jenin, and other cities people danced in the streets. That doesn’t sound as if they opposed the attack.

Myth #5: “The major American news outlets are staffed by objective, professionally trained journalists; if their coverage of Israel is unflattering, that’s because of Israel’s own policies, not because of media bias” – the attack was reported by some of the American press as follows:

CNN’s Twitter announcement of the attack put the word “terrorists” in quotation marks, stating, “Two ‘terrorists’ captured after Tel Aviv attack, Israeli police spokesman tweets.” The Washington Post’s correspondents in Israel, William Booth and Ruth Eglash, exhibited the same bias. They described the terrorists as “gunmen,” “assailants,” and “attackers”—but never as terrorists, and only indirectly as Palestinians. And the headline-writers at Washington Post headquarters came up with this gem: “4 Killed in Tel Aviv Market Shooting that Officials Labeled Terrorist Attack.”

Until the PA stops celebrating terrorism, training its children to be martyrs, and teaching hatred of Israel, there will not be peace in the Middle East. You cannot have a two-state solution with people who want to exterminate you. It simply is not possible.

Remember All Those Russian Women Athletes?

Posted on by

I trust this source, but I am having a hard time believing what I am reading. In January of this year, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a new rules change by the International Olympic Committee.

The related article at Breitbart.com article reports:

There’s great news for adventurous male Olympic hopefuls: if they declare themselves women and reduce their testosterone below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to competition, they can compete against ladies.

There’s even better news for these men; according to transgender guidelines approved by the International Olympic Committee, genitalia does not serve as a prerequisite. The guidelines state: “To require surgical anatomical changes as a pre-condition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights.”

Cyd Zeigler at OutSports.com reported on the policy change.

The IOC held a “Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism” in November at which they created the new guidelines, loosening prior rules adopted in 2004 to allow transgender athletes into the Games. The previous rules required that transgender athletes must have undergone external genitalia changes and removal of gonads, as well as obtaining legal recognition of their assigned sex  from appropriate official authorities.

The new guidelines attempt to justify themselves by citing various societies’ acceptance of fluid gender identity, writing, “Since the 2003 Stockholm Consensus on Sex Reassignment in Sports, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of autonomy of gender identity in society, as reflected in the laws of many jurisdictions worldwide.”

So now gender identity and gender fluidity has entered the olympic games.

Has anyone considered that generally speaking a male who decides to become a female after the age of 20 or so is probably taller and has more muscle mass than he would have if he had been born a female? His size and his muscle mass give him an unfair advantage.

I remember all those Russian women in the 1950’s and 1960’s that were accused of being men. Their lives would be so much simpler if they were competing today.

Unfortunately, This Is Only The Beginning

Posted on by

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to deal with Puerto Rico‘s debt crisis today. Bloomberg reported the following:

The U.S. House passed a hard-fought, bipartisan compromise designed to stem Puerto Rico’s worsening debt crisis after months of wrangling and a significant default.

The legislation, passed 297-127 Thursday, would establish a seven-member financial oversight board to manage a restructuring of Puerto Rico’s $70 billion debt and oversee the island’s finances. The commonwealth racked up the debt after years of borrowing to cover operating costs. The plan envisions the largest federal intervention into the island’s fiscal affairs since it became a U.S. territory in 1898 after the Spanish-American War.

This is a graph taken from the International Business Times:

PuertoRicoDebtThe direction of their debt was clear. They were evidently unable to get spending under control.

Bloomberg reports:

In the vote, 139 Republicans joined 158 Democrats in favor, while 103 Republicans and 24 Democrats opposed it.

The thing that worries me about this whole situation is that we have numerous cities and states within the United States that have large amounts of ‘unfunded liabilities’ that will eventually catch up with them. At that point they will probably ask Congress for money. At least Congress did not simply bail out Puerto Rico (and hopefully it will not bail out our cities and states as they find themselves in similar situations). This bill seems to be more of a restructuring and a restraint on spending than a bail out. That is better than a bail out, but there will be many people who are owed money that will not be paid what they are owed.

The article at Bloomberg explains why many Congressmen felt that this action was necessary:

Yet the most persuasive closing argument for many lawmakers may have been one articulated by, among others, Alabama Republican Bradley Byrne: “What really worries me is that if Congress doesn’t act on this legislation, then we will at some point find ourselves facing serious pressure to vote on a true, actual bailout of Puerto Rico. That would be a grave mistake.”

A group of unions led by the AFL-CIO urged House Democrats to vote against the bill because of the minimum-wage and overtime pay provisions. The conservative group Heritage Action opposes the measure because it allows debt restructuring and temporarily shields Puerto Rico’s government from lawsuits filed by creditors.

The commonwealth’s fiscal crisis has been escalating since last June, when Garcia Padilla said the administration couldn’t afford to repay $70 billion of debt left by years of borrowing to cover budget shortfalls as the economy contracted and residents left at a record pace for the U.S. mainland. It has since failed to cover $370 million due on bonds sold by the Government Development Bank and $150 million for two other agencies as it conserved cash.

Stay tuned.

The Continuing Squirm Of Those Who Represent The GOP Establishment

Posted on by

I thought the GOP establishment had given up on opposing Donald Trump, but recent events have proven me wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, I am not a Trump supporter, although I will vote for him before I will vote for Hillary.

However, in April The Washington Post reported the following:

Politico‘s Kyle Cheney noticed something interesting about Donald Trump’s big primary wins on Tuesday night. With a number of states still to vote — including the largest, California — Trump is poised to set a new record vote total in Republican presidential primaries. The current record is held by George W. Bush, with his 10.8 million votes in 2000. Trump, according to RealClearPolitics, is currently at a little north of 10 million.

Trump has brought out the voters. The article included the following chart:

VotesForTrump

So why in the world is the Republican establishment trying to torpedo him?

The comments below were posted by Hugh Hewitt at Townhall.com today:

“We’re going to get killed with this nominee,” Hewitt said.

“It’s like ignoring stage-four cancer,” he continued. “You can’t do it, you gotta go attack it. And right now the Republican Party is facing — the plane is headed towards the mountain after the last 72 hours.”

…As for Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), he predicted that Trump’s attack on Curiel could result in a convention challenge.

Hewitt, it seems, hopes this is the case. A candidate who causes this much controversy, he intoned, will not have a prayer in the general election.

Hugh Hewitt has recently taken over the time slot on the Salem network that used to be the Bill Bennett show. I love Hugh Hewitt, but I believe he is missing something here. The American people do not care that Donald Trump is a flawed candidate. They are so disgusted by the incestual existence of the political class in Washington that they would vote for Jack the Ripper if they thought he would change things. I’m not saying that this is good–I’m just saying that this is what is. What is becoming very obvious is that some of the establishment Republicans would rather see Hillary elected because she will maintain the Washington status quo than Donald Trump who would tend to upset the apple cart.

Donald Trump has legitimately won the GOP nomination. Taking that nomination away from him and replacing him with an establishment candidate would surely guarantee a President Hillary Clinton. Is that what the GOP wants?

You Need To Identify A Problem Correctly In Order To Solve It

Posted on by

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the slow economic growth  we are experiencing in America.

The article explains:

Republicans, eager to hit the ground running if a Republican president is elected in November, have crafted a plan to fix what the current president broke: the banking system. By replacing the failed Dodd-Frank financial reform with something that works, they’ll go a long way toward fixing our ailing economy.

Dodd-Frank, the massive, 2,300-page law passed in 2010 after the 2008 financial crisis and global market meltdown, was intended to punish Wall Street for its excesses, which supposedly had caused the crisis in the first place. Instead, it ended up putting a wet blanket over the entire financial industry and the economy.

In 2008 YouTube posted a video entitled, “Burning Down The House.” I am embedding the video here in case you have not seen it:

 

The video explains that the meltdown in the housing market was not caused by greedy banks–it was caused by Congressmen who accepted benefits from people they were supposed to be overseeing. Please watch the video if you have not seen it.

The article at Investor’s Business Daily sums up the solution to the sluggish economy:

So what is the Republicans’ plan? It’s pretty simple.

It would end too-big-to-fail by creating a new kind of bankruptcy for very large banks having more than $50 billion in assets, instead of bailouts. Government loan guarantees would go away. In order to be competitive, larger banks would have to raise more capital — meaning, they would be risking their money, not taxpayers’, when they make loans.

Yes, it would tighten punishments and boost fines for fraud, insider trading and other financial violations. But it would also neuter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has turned into an oppressive, inefficient regulator of the entire consumer financial market.

Hensarling gets it. He understands that the left’s entire reason for imposing stiff regulations over banking is about control — not about preventing another meltdown.

“The ultimate goal of the left is to turn our large, money-center banks into the functional equivalent of utilities so that Washington can politically allocate credit,” Hensarling said.

The stakes of this reform are enormous. Indeed, many economists believe that the main reason for the economy’s growth path shifting downward, from 3% before 2008 to less than 2% currently, is Dodd-Frank.

Peter Wallison, who sat on the national commission that investigated the 2008 crisis, noted in a report last year that Dodd Frank’s heavy regulatory costs and restrictive lending standards on small banks had “reduced the ability of these banks to finance small businesses, particularly the startup businesses which are the engine of employment and economic growth.”

A report last year by the American Action Forum estimated that Dodd Frank could cost the economy nearly $1 trillion in GDP over 10 years. Reforming Dodd-Frank, it seems, would be a big shot in the arm for the economy.

The voters will decide in November if they want prosperity.

As Predicted

Posted on by

There were many parents and grandparents who opposed President Obama’s bathroom bill. Their opposition had nothing to do with discrimination against transgenders or wanting to make transgendered people feel uncomfortable–it had to do with those who would use the law as a cover for unacceptable activities that would not have been possible without the law. The story I am about to post is from a few weeks ago, but it is an illustration of the consequences of President Obama’s bathroom (locker room) bill.

There are two sources for this story. One is the U.K. Daily Mail and the other is the DC Gazette. They both tell the same story.

The DC Gazette reports:

When Obama ordered his sweeping transgender bathroom demands to be enforced across the country, parents everywhere felt a sick feeling in their stomachs. It wasn’t so much a concern over transgender students, but more about young hormone-driven teenage boys now being allowed to use the restroom with their daughters.

Well, our fears have come true in a Fort Myers school and all conservatives can say is ” I told you so.”

Several male students at South Fort Myers High School are under investigation for what the school is calling “inappropriate activity” in a girls’ bathroom.

According to reports, 20+ members of the school’s football team entered the schools ladies locker room and had sex with a 15 year old female student. The boys also allegedly recorded the incident on a cell phone. It’s not yet known if the young girl participated willingly or not, but police are viewing the footage to decide if criminal charges need to be filed. 

The U.K. Daily Mail reports:

A 15-year-old high school girl has allegedly been caught on camera having sex with multiple boys in a girls’ bathroom on campus.

At least one student has been disciplined for ‘inappropriate activity’ after police reports suggested 25 boys were seen going in and out of the bathroom at South Fort Myers High School in Fort Myers, Florida.

The girl reportedly told the school’s principal she ‘had sex with a number of the boys’, while fellow students claimed the group ‘locked themselves’ in and filmed the acts on camera.

Footage of the incident was sent round school on Snapchat, according to Fox4now.   

Isn’t there a grown-up somewhere in the Obama Administration that remembers the raging hormones of their teenage years? This was a disaster waiting to happen, and unless President Obama’s directive that bathrooms and locker rooms be open to whoever feels like whatever, there will be more stories like this. Is there anyone in Washington who cares enough for the next generation to speak up to protect it?

Every Time I Think President Obama Can’t Further Offend Bible-Believing Christians, He Does

Posted on by

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality and gender. God created Adam and Eve. That’s pretty straightforward. There are a lot of voices speaking out right now in support of the concept of transgenderism. There are also voices stating that transgenderism is a mental illness. Suffice it to say that even among people who don’t believe in The Bible, the issue is not totally clear. Many of us do not want high school boys in high school girls’ locker rooms.

Today The Daily Signal is reporting on President Obama’s latest slap in the face to Bible-believing Christians.

The article reports:

President Barack Obama’s appointment of a Christian transgender activist as an adviser on faith issues represents part of a larger agenda, some social conservatives fear.

Last month, Obama named Barbara Satin, a man who identifies as a woman, to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Satin is the assistant faith works director for the LGBTQ Task Force and a member of the United Church of Christ, where she served on the church’s national executive council. The denomination is among the nation’s most open to the LGBT community. Satin has been the chair of GLBT Generations—an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people—since 1999.

“It makes sense the president would appoint a transgender activist as a faith adviser,” said Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, a social conservative advocacy group. “It would be a bigger surprise if he appointed someone with traditional values.”

I don’t care if President Obama puts this man in charge of something within the administration, but to appoint him as an advisor on faith issues is simply an insult to many people of faith.

The article further states:

The council is charged with identifying the best practices for delivering social services, “evaluating the need for improvements in the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith-based and neighborhood organizations,” and making policy recommendations to the president and other administration officials.

The bigger problem is that the council is not representative of America’s faith community, said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council.

“This is more evidence that Obama is attempting a moral revolution pretending the percentages of America is as diverse as his faith council,” Stemberger said. “It’s not a proportional representation of America.”

He added this appointment ties in with the larger debate.

“This is directly related to the bathroom debate,” Stemberger said. “It’s an attempt to push conservative traditional people of faith on this issue. No world religion embraces this moral agenda, at least not in its orthodox form.”

The leadership of America has lost its way. Our leadership no longer represents the Judeo-Christian values our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were based on. When the foundation is taken out, the house collapses. This is not a good thing.

From The Military Times

Posted on by

Yesterday The Military Times posted a story about D-Day. I would like to share some of that story so that people who may not have studied that day and what it meant can appreciate what the young men involved did on that day.

The story reports:

Seventy-two years ago, on June 6, 1944, Allied troops waded ashore on the beaches of Normandy to liberate Nazi-occupied Europe. The night before, on June 5, American airborne forces had landed on the western flank of the invasion area near Sainte-Mère-Église, while British airborne forces secured the eastern flank and Pegasus Bridge. They jumped out of C-47 Dakota transport planes, through darkness and into glory. Some arrived by glider. Pvt. John Steele of the 82nd Airborne landed on the steeple of the church at Sainte-Mère-Église. He managed to survive by playing dead.

…On Utah Beach — all of the landing sites had code names — 56-year-old Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (the oldest son of former President Teddy Roosevelt) landed about a mile from his intended target. When asked whether to re-embark the 4th Infantry Division, he simply said, “We’ll start the war from right here!”

…Eisenhower planned the invasion from his offices at 20 Grosvenor Square in London. Number 1 Grosvenor Square was the wartime location of the American embassy. Averell Harriman presided over lend-lease aid from 3 Grosvenor Square, helping to fund our wartime Allies. The OSS (Office of Strategic Services), forerunner of the CIA, had its offices at 70 Grosvenor Square. Small wonder that this neighborhood was known as Little America at the time. Some wags even referred to Grosvenor Square as Eisenhowerplatz.

Imagine if an operation like the Normandy landing were to occur today in 2016. In the age of social media, interactive polls would ask: “Which beach do you prefer, Normandy or Pas de Calais?” Could all the members of the 101st Screaming Eagles, painted in Indian war paint with Mohawk haircuts, be counted upon not to post their pictures on Facebook? That seems doubtful.

…This June 6, raise a glass and toast the heroism of all those young men who fought to liberate America’s oldest ally from Nazi occupation. Without their service and sacrifice, our world would be a darker place. General Patton may have summed it up best when he said, “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.”

DDay2016My father was one of the men who landed on Utah beach. I can’t image what those men went through. I only hope that somehow as America is faced with the Islamization that has happened in most of Europe we will find the same courage that America had in 1944.

Justice Under The Law?

Posted on by

I have no idea why the sentence in this case was so skewed, but I think it is just wrong.

The New York Magazine posted an article on Friday about the sentencing of Brock Allen Turner. Brock Allen Turner was convicted on raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster on the Stanford University campus. He was sentenced to six months in the county jail and probation.

The story reports:

“A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him,” Persky (Judge Aaron Persky)said at Turner’s sentencing on Thursday. “I think he will not be a danger to others.” Meanwhile, the 23-year-old victim in the rape case, who had had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit at the time of the rape and who had no memory of the attack, gave important testimony at the trial.

“You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she said, reportedly directly to Turner. “I am a human being who has been irreversibly hurt.” And yet it’s Turner who would be severely impacted in his sentencing? Right.

Does anyone else have a problem with this? I agree that the woman was drunk, but that still does not excuse the young man’s behavior. There is no doubt about his guilt, the assault was interrupted by two other students who chased him down and held him until the police arrived. I don’t understand why the judge feels that this man will not be a danger to others–he obviously has a problem with respecting women and their privacy. This behavior belongs in jail for at least five years. Otherwise, you are sending a message to all young men that it is okay to rape a woman if she is drunk–the penalty will be minor.

Wasting The Time Of The Local Deputy Sheriff

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Tribune posted an article about an incident in Palmdale, California, that illustrates the erosion of free speech in America.

The article reports:

The boy, a student at Desert Rose Elementary School in Palmdale, always got an encouraging note along with a Bible verse packed in his lunch every day. Other students were curious about the notes, packed by his mother, Christina Zavala, and expressed that they, too, would like to have some.

Zavala was more than happy to oblige.

The above story is a very simple example of how little kids do things–if your mom puts something in your lunch box that is unique, the other kids want one too.

The story continues:

However, it didn’t take long for school officials to put an end to the sharing. On April 18, Zavala was told by a teacher that her son could no longer share the Bible verses at school, but he could share them outside the school gate after the bell rang.

Apparently that was not enough, and on May 9, the school’s principal banned sharing Bible verses on school property altogether, citing school policy.

And just to make sure the family understood the school’s firm stance, a deputy sheriff was dispatched to the Zavala’s home to reinforce the message.

What law was broken? Why would a deputy sheriff visit the child’s home? What is the school afraid of? Does the child not have First Amendment rights?

This is the correct response to the school principal‘s actions:

Attorney Richard Mast, who represented the Zavala family, told Fox News the visit was “outrageous and should shock the conscious of every freedom-loving American.”

“Apparently all the real criminals have been dealt with in Palmdale — and now they’re going after kids who share Bible verses during lunch time,” he added.

Raul Maldonado, superintendent of Palmdale School District, said he was reviewing the matter and did not answer questions regarding the sheriff’s visit to the Zavala’s residence.

Liberty Counsel has demanded the school stop suppressing and censoring the religious freedom of students. If they do not comply, they could face a federal lawsuit.

Little kids share. Let them.

 

A Different Solution To America’s Spending Problem

Posted on by

The national debt has doubled since 2007.  It is now approximately $19,000,000,000,000. Congress has not been successful at stopping spending, and the economy is struggling along with the burden of debt and over-regulation. One Congressman has a proposal that will deal with at least part of the problem.

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about a proposal by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah).

The article reports:

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) joined Lee to formally introduce the Article I Regulatory Budget Reform Act, which would require Congress to cast a vote on the “total regulatory burden” federal agencies are able to enforce on the private sector each fiscal year.

“Federal regulations come with a cost, albeit a hidden one. The American people can look up in the federal budget and see a monetary cost for the IRS and the EPA. They should also be able to look up what the regulatory cost for these agencies are as well. Beyond making the cost of federal regulation transparent, a regulatory budget will help restore accountability for the cost of regulation onto the people’s elected representatives,” Hensarling said at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington.

“With a regulatory budget, it would become so much more difficult for members of Congress to simply pass the buck and blame the faceless, nameless bureaucrats for the cost of regulations on the American people’s families and their businesses,” he added.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is charged with making laws. They are supposed to be held accountable for the laws they pass. Unfortunately, we have wandered into a system where unelected bureaucrats are making our laws, and we can’t vote them out of office.

The article adds:

Lee argued that most of the major bills Congress has passed only “establish aspirational guidelines,” which gives the executive branch the power to determine the specifics. He said Congress should establish “regulatory-cost limits” for federal agencies to follow.

“For the rule-writing bureaucrats, these open-ended laws are gifts that keep on giving. For instance, in the years since Congress first passed the Clean Air Act in 1977, federal bureaucrats have used the law to enact more than 13,500 pages of regulations – roughly 30 pages for every page of legislative text,” Lee said.

“But for the American people, this kind of government without consent is a violation of the social compact at the heart of our republic and exactly why they no longer trust the federal government,” he added.

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document. The government it established works. Unfortunately we have altered that government to the point where it barely works and is not trusted by the American people. We need serious reform in Washington. Senator Lee’s proposal might be a good place to start.

Looking Past The Obvious

Posted on by

President Obama has touted the ‘economic recovery‘ as one of his accomplishments. He might want to be a little quieter about that as the latest jobs figures and the numbers behind them indicate a very slow recovery.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the jobs numbers just released.

Some highlights from the article:

While last month’s overall gain of 38,000 jobs, including a 25,000 rise in private payrolls, was dragged down temporarily by the labor strike of 35,000 Verizon (VZ) communications workers, the weakness was broad-based. On net, just 51.3% of industries added jobs, the lowest since February 2010, Labor Department data showed.

…One decent bit of news in the employment report is that the trend of firming wages remained intact, as hourly pay rose 0.2% from April and 2.5% from a year ago. That’s consistent with anecdotal reports of companies having to pay more to attract or keep good workers, and many finding qualified workers in short supply.

…The drop in the unemployment rate to 4.7% from 5% in April appears at first to be consistent with a tight labor market. Still, the sudden drop in joblessness, which reflected fewer people in the workforce rather than an increase in employment, should be taken with a grain of salt, given the household survey’s higher margin of error.

…The reality portrayed by the weak jobs report got some confirmation from the Institute for Supply Management’s survey of non-manufacturing industries, with the index slipping to a 28-month low of 52.9 in May from 55.7 in April — well below expectations. The employment gauge fell into negative territory, dropping 3.3 points to 49.7, just below the neutral 50 level.

…Somehow, the retail sector has seemingly defied gravity when it comes to employment, adding 11,400 jobs last month and 323,000 over the past year. The explanation may be that the workweek has shrunk, since aggregate hours of work in the retail industry are down 0.3% over the past three months.

So what is the bottom line? Workforce participation is down, job growth is slow, and the number of hours people are working has gone down. That doesn’t sound like a robust economic recovery to me. It is definitely time for a change of direction. As I have previously stated, I am not a Trump supporter, but I will vote for him because I believe that he may have the business experience to turn this mess around.