Monthly Archives: December 2016

Common Sense Shows Up

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about a ruling by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The article reports:

A Texas judge has temporarily blocked the Obama administration’s new requirements for transgender care, granting a preliminary injunction Saturday to several states and religious health organizations suing over the rules.

The rule, which was slated to go into effect Jan. 1, says that doctors can’t refuse to provide medically necessary health services within their scope of practice because of a patient’s gender identity. It doesn’t explicitly require doctors to perform gender transition services, but it says providers can’t refuse services they already provide based on discrimination.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas temporarily blocked the requirements at the request of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arizona and Mississippi along with the Franciscan Alliance and several other religiously affiliated organizations.

Judge Reed O’Connor wrote that the rule contradicts existing law and “likely violates” the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Becket Fund, which is representing the states and organizations, said the decision ensures doctors won’t be required to act against their best medical judgement or violate their religious beliefs.

Transgender rights seem to be the new cause of the political left. According to the statistics I could find, the LGBT community makes up between 3 to 4 percent of the American population, and the transgender community makes up a small percentage of that 3 to 4 percent. I really don’t care what anyone does in their spare time or in their bedroom–that is way above my pay grade to judge. However, when their practices begin to infringe on my rights as a religious person, I have a right to defend those rights. Again, I don’t care if you get married–just don’t ask a person who believes in the Biblical definition of marriage to marry you. Don’t ask a baker who holds a Biblical definition of marriage to bake you a cake. Ask someone who is comfortable with being involved in some way with your wedding. (No, I don’t think the Rockettes should be required to perform at Trump’s Inauguration either). You are entitled to your freedom as long as it does not interfere with my freedom. As far as the battle over restrooms is concerned, to me it is very simple–there are non-LGBT people out there who will take advantage of a law allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of the sex they are becoming by using the bathroom that does not correspond with their obvious sexual characteristics. The problem is not the transgender community–it is the disturbed people outside of that community who will take advantage of the law if it changes. In places where the law has changed, there have already been arrests. I don’t want a man in the ladies’ room when I (or my daughters or granddaughters) are in there. If he feels like a woman, he is still not welcome if he is a man.

Again, I don’t need to know or care what anyone else does in their bedroom, but I do need to care when someone tries to infringe on my right to practice my religion.

 

Bad Behavior By A Supposed NATO Ally

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Dion Nissenbaum, a Wall Street Journal staff reporter, was detained for 2 1/2 days last week and not allowed to communicate with either his family or an attorney.

The article reports:

Mr. Nissenbaum’s detention came amid a broader crackdown on press freedom in Turkey, where dozens of reporters, mainly Turkish, are behind bars. Since the summer, Turkey, where the government has imposed a state of emergency, has closed more than 100 domestic media outlets.

While in custody, Mr. Nissenbaum, a U.S. citizen, was denied access to lawyers despite repeated requests, he said. He also wasn’t allowed to contact his family or his employer. Mr. Nissenbaum said authorities told him he was under investigation, but they declined to say for what.

It is time to reevaluate our relationship with Turkey. Turkey is moving closer to Russia, but at the same time President Erdogan is also moving toward the establishment of an Islamic state. At some time in the future, that will be a problem for the relationship between Turkey and Russia, but right now that relationship is useful to both countries. Erdogan wants to end any idea of an independent Kurdish nation by crushing the Kurds and Russia wants to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. Right now, they can work together. It is anyone’s guess as to how long that alliance will last. Erdogan’s goal is to recreate the Ottoman Empire. As a Muslim, Erdogan would be quite comfortable with the Islamic principle of taqiyya (deceit or dissimulation, particularly toward infidels–Quran 3:28 and 16:106). Much like Putin, former KGB, would have no problem using Erdogan for his own purposes, Erdogan would have no problem lying to Putin for his own purposes. Good luck to both of them, they deserve each other.

I think it’s time to reconsider the role of Turkey in NATO. As much as it would be nice to have a country in NATO that would be a bridge between east and west, I think Turkey has shown by its actions that it is not that country.

 

 

Of Course They Do

Posted on by

Breitbart.com posted an article today citing a Times of Israel report stating that Arab leaders support John Kerry’s proposals for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course they do. The 1967 borders are indefensible. Kerry’s peace plan is the blueprint for the Arab dream of driving the Israelis into the sea.

The article reports:

Saudi Arabia issued a statement Thursday via an official news agency saying that the kingdom “welcomed the proposals” set forth by Kerry and that they were in accordance “with the majority of the resolutions of international legality and most of the elements of the Arab Peace Initiative” adopted by the Arab League in 2002.

Kerry’s proposals represent “an appropriate basis for achieving a final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” the Saudi Press Agency reported, citing an unnamed source in the Saudi Foreign Ministry.

This is amazing. If you remember, the concept is called ‘land for peace.’ Israel gave the ‘Palestinians‘ the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace. The Palestinians promptly destroyed all the greenhouses that could have provided income for them and then used the land as a staging area to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. The Palestinians also used the Gaza Strip to build underground tunnels to move troops through to attack Israeli civilians. The Palestinians got the land, but Israel did not get the peace. Shouldn’t we learn from history?

Israel is being asked to give up the Wailing Wall and part of the Golan Heights. The Wailing Wall is Jewish–it doesn’t in any way belong to the Arabs. The Golan Heights is strategic–it is a great place to lob rockets at innocent Israeli civilians–it was used for that purpose before the 1967 War. The 1967 boundaries were never actually boundaries–they were cease-fire lines drawn until a solution could be worked out. They were indefensible at the time, and they are indefensible now. Forcing Israel to give up more land for an illusive peace will only create more war. It is truly a shame that the Obama Administration chooses not to understand this. I am sure Israel, along with those who sincerely want peace in the Middle East, is looking forward to the Trump Administration.

In The End, Our Votes Do Count

Posted on by

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about some of the things President Obama has done in the final days of his administration. His actions have not been respectful of either the American voters or the incoming President. Just for the record, outside of the State of California, Donald Trump won 58,474,401 votes and Hillary Clinton won 57,064,530 votes–a victory margin of approximately 1.4 million for Donald Trump. I won’t even speculate on how many non-citizens voted in California.

If you remember, back in 2008, after the votes were tallied, but before the electoral college had met, Barack Obama created the office of the President-elect. There was no such office, and until the Electoral College voted in December, he wasn’t even officially the President-elect. However, President George W. Bush did everything he could to insure a smooth transition. Unfortunately, President Obama has chosen to ignore the good example that was placed before him.

The New York Post reports:

From his dramatic and disastrous change of US policy on Israel to his executive order restricting 1.65 million acres of land from development despite local objections, Obama is trying to make it impossible for Donald Trump and a GOP-controlled Congress to govern.

Even Thursday’s announcement of wide-ranging sanctions against Russia presents Trump with a foreign-policy crisis immediately upon taking office.

By contrast, many of Obama’s predecessors have stood back in their final days in office and refrained from any dramatic shifts, in deference to the agenda of the man voters sent to succeed them.

But Obama won’t accept the election results. As he suggested the other day, Trump’s election was a fluke — and he himself would have easily been re-elected if allowed to stand for a third term.

He believes this not just because he’s an effective campaigner, but because he thinks his “vision” and policies continue to be backed by “a majority of the American people.”

But Obama, like many Democrats, fails to understand what happened in the election: Voters were calling for real change from the status quo — from his policies. Indeed, before the vote, he himself said it was a referendum on him and his policies.

Memo to the president: You lost.

President Obama has stated that if he were able to run for a third term as President, he would have won. To believe that is to ignore the fact that during the Obama Administration the Democrats have lost a tremendous number of governorships, state legislatures, and majorities in Congress.

On Tuesday, Fox News reported the following:

While Obama’s tireless campaigning, broad demographic appeal and message of “hope” and “change” helped propel him to two terms in the White House, his skills on the stump haven’t translated down the ballot.

The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure.

The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency. 

The latter was perhaps the most profound example of Obama’s popularity failing to translate to support for his allies. Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, brought the first family out for numerous campaign appearances. In September, Obama declared that his “legacy’s on the ballot.”

Less than two months later, Americans voted for Donald Trump.

American voters voted against President Obama’s legacy–now President Obama is trying to tie President-elect Donald Trump’s hands in undoing the parts of that legacy that have been harmful to Americans–the Iran deal, fighting against energy independence, over regulation, extreme environmentalism, treating our allies badly and our enemies well, etc. The voters have spoken. It is time for President Obama to quietly leave the stage.

 

 

 

 

A New Degree Of Pettiness

Posted on by

Reuters is reporting today that the U.S. Government has ordered 35 Russian suspected spies to leave America and imposed sanctions on two Russian intelligence agencies over their involvement in hacking U.S. political groups in the 2016 presidential election. First of all, the people who leaked the emails have repeatedly stated that Russia had nothing to do with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)–those who released the emails have stated that they came from a whistleblower within the DNC who objected to the primary election being rigged to give Hillary Clinton the nomination.

The article at Reuters is a classic example of spin. They go on to say that the Russians were responsible, yet ignore the content of the emails released, which is actually what turned voters off. There is no mention of the fact that no one has ever denied the content of the emails despite the fact that it revealed horrible things about how the DNC operated.  One can’t help but wonder if the sanctions and expulsion of diplomats would be happening if Hillary Clinton had won the election. Would President Obama care?

John Hinderaker posted a more balanced article dealing with the Russian sanctions at Power Line today.

The Power Line article asks an obvious question:

The Obama administration insists that Russia’s government was behind the DNC intrusion, but acknowledges that those who actually carried out the operation were not Russian government employees. Rather, the Fancy Bear group is said to be “affiliated with the GRU.” The administration says it will publish a report before Obama leaves office that will detail the evidence against Vladimir Putin’s administration. Until then, there is no way to evaluate the reliability of the claim that Russia’s government was involved.

But let’s assume it was. This is the question I haven’t seen the press corps ask; needless to say, the administration hasn’t answered it. Why didn’t Obama impose sanctions on Russia in October 2014, when, by the administration’s own account, the Russian government hacked into both the White House’s and the State Department’s computers? This was a much more serious infraction than invading Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s emails. Yet it drew zero response from Obama, who seemed more interested in covering up an embarrassing episode than in punishing the Russians.

Given that history, it is hard to disagree with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said:

We think that such steps by a U.S. administration that has three weeks left to work are aimed at two things: to further harm Russian-American ties, which are at a low point as it is, as well as, obviously, to deal a blow to the foreign policy plans of the incoming administration of the president-elect.

I knew President Obama would not go quietly, but I did not expect him to complicate America’s relationships around the world. Russia under Putin will never be trustworthy, but at least there was a possibility of a working relationship under President Trump. President Obama has done what he could to make any cooperation between our two countries very difficult.

 

The Actual History Behind The Country Of Israel

Posted on by

Michael Oren is Israel‘s Deputy Minister for Diplomacy. On Tuesday he was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on the subject of U.N. Resolution 2334, the Resolution that declared Israeli ‘settlements’ in parts of Israel illegal. Hugh Hewitt posted a transcript of the interview.

This is a highlight from the interview that explains why Resolution 2334 is neither appropriate or helpful:

HH: I have to begin by asking, you’re such a great historian, will you reset what the dispute over the territory is and why the Western Wall is not occupied territory, as the UN Resolution 2332 declares it to be?

MO: It’s, okay, I’ll try to do it as quickly as possible. In 1947, the UN declared that Palestine, as it was then known, would be partitioned into two states – an Arab state and an Jewish state. Notice, not a Palestinian state, but an Arab state. The Palestinians didn’t quite exist, yet, and at least not on the international radar. And the Arabs went to war to destroy the Jewish state when it was created on May 14, 1948. And the city of Jerusalem was divided. The eastern part of the city was occupied by the Jordanians, the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. In June, 1967, the Jordanians attacked Israel again. Israel repulsed the attack, reunited Jerusalem under Israeli rule, and captured the West Bank, or as we call it, Judea and Samaria. It is not occupied by international law, because the West Bank and East Jerusalem was never part of a recognized sovereign country. Nobody in the world, except for Britain and Pakistan, recognized the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. So the entire international law claim is spurious. But when Israel reunited the city and reunited the city, the Western Wall is in the eastern part of the city. The old city is in the eastern part of the city. We certainly can’t consider our homeland for 3,000 years to be occupied territory. You know, tell a member of the Sioux Nation that his tribal lands are occupied and he can’t live on them. That’s what the UN is telling us. They’re telling us more than that, that by living in them, we’re criminals.

HH: Yeah, this audience has heard Steven Pressfield talk about The Lion’s Gate, the book that will bring people to tears. And you’ve talked about it in your histories as well. It just is absurd. So what happened? Why would the United States do this? And what was the United States’ role in Resolution 2332, which was not vetoed in a breach of American policy that is as bad for the country of Israel as it is for the Palestinians and indeed the world?

MO: It’s bad for the world, and it’s bad for the United States, too, Hugh, and I’ll explain why. The American role was to stand back and let Israel take a tremendous hit, a tremendous hit that will expose us to sanctions and boycotts. It will kill the peace process. It will deliver a deadly, deadly blow to the people of the Middle East who look to the UN for salvation and get absolutely none at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are being massacred here. What does the UN do? It beats up on the Middle East’s only democracy. And America’s role, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu, was to cook it all up and to do some arm twisting and make it happen? Why? The Obama administration did this, I can recommend another book, I can’t do that because I’m in government, where it explains the Obama’s worldview, a worldview that sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the core conflict of the Middle East, sees the core of that conflict, the settlement and the occupation, as he calls it, and was going to do his utmost to his last day in office to discredit and delegitimize Israel for our position in settling our homeland and reuniting our ancestral capital, Jerusalem.

This resolution essentially states that Jews building houses on their own land is an obstacle to peace. Somehow it overlooks the fact that rockets fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip might be an obstacle to peace. Somehow it overlooks the fact that Hamas and the PLO have never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist–that might be an obstacle to peace.

It is a shame that this resolution was passed. If peace is possible in the Middle East, this resolution will make it more difficult to achieve. It is difficult to make peace with people whose goal is ‘to drive you into the sea,’ which has been the stated goal of the Arab nations surrounding Israel since 1948 when Israel became a nation. It is even more unfortunate that nations who generally support freedom do not support the only free country in the Middle East where Jews and Arabs have equal rights and religious freedom.The Israeli model of equal rights is the only path to peace in the Middle East, and the United Nations just threw a giant obstacle in that path.

The Next “To Big To Fail”

Posted on by

On December 23, Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about the problem with public employee pension funds. These future pensions are generally unfunded liabilities that municipalities take on when negotiating with public employee unions. What generally happens is that employees are promised great pension benefits instead of instant raises. That way the municipality does not have to raise its immediate budget–it looks as if it is being fiscally sane, and it quietly kicks the can down the road. In most cases (if not all) no provision is made to pay for these future benefits. Well, there always is a place where the can is no longer kicked down the road because the road ended. California is nearing that place.

The article reports:

Last week, the 85-year-old California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or CalPERS, slashed its official investment forecast going forward, meaning that state and local governments, police and sheriffs departments, and even school districts will have to spend billions of dollars more to CalPERS to support their future retirees. And, no doubt, it will mean higher taxes for all.

Sadly, this move won’t be enough. For years, the state has projected steady investment returns of 7.5% for CalPERS, the largest pension fund in the nation. But returns have been below that. So now CalPERS is trimming its return to 7% per year. But, given the pension fund’s mismanagement and poor performance, even that may be too high. Today the fund is a little over 60% fully funded, meaning it will have to raise billions of dollars more to be solvent. That means higher contributions for government workers, and higher taxes for average citizens.

It’s no accident. “CalPERS has … steered billions of dollars into politically connected firms,” wrote Steve Malanga in City Journal, back in 2013. “And it has ventured into ‘socially responsible’ investment strategies, making bad bets that have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Such dubious practices have piled up a crushing amount of pension debt, which California residents — and their children — will somehow have to repay.”

That’s happening now. California’s famous Highway Patrol, for instance, has grossly underfunded its pensions. So it got the state to agree to a $10 hike in car registration fees to help make up the shortfall. No doubt, it will be asking for more soon.

It’s not just California. Across the country, pension funds have been underfunded, mismanaged and in some cases looted by managers. Today, according to the Fed, pension funds across the country are $2 trillion in the red — after being overfunded as recently as the year 2000. That means tax hikes are coming, like it or not.

This is a nationwide problem. This is also not a new problem. In 2010 I posted an article about the shortfall in union pension money. The close connection between many local politicians and local union leaders is a major contributor to this problem.

The Investor’s Business Daily article concludes:

In a scathing, just-released report, the American Legislative Exchange details how “rather than investing to earn the best return for workers, (politicians and fund officials) use pension funds in a misguided attempt to boost their local economies, provide kickbacks to their political supporters, reward industries they like, punish those they don’t and bully corporations into silence and behaving as they see fit.”

It’s quite an indictment. It’s time for a national commission to look into the misconduct and mismanagement — which pose a clear danger to the financial system — and answer the scariest question of all: Have public employee pension funds become too big to fail?

We have just elected a businessman to the Presidency. Hopefully he will have the skill and the knowledge to deal with this upcoming disaster. What is happening in California will eventually impact the rest of the country.

The Economy President Obama Is Leaving Behind Left The Middle Class Behind

Posted on by

I wrote the article below for a local newspaper. It was published a few weeks ago. I thought I would also share it here.

 

This is the picture of the Gross Domestic Product since 2006 (from tradingeconomics.com).

As you can see, it has taken almost eight years to get back to where we were in 2008. The other interesting number is the Workforce Participation Rate. Here is that chart:

The number of people participating in the workforce has dropped steadily since 2009.

We have not recovered from the recession that followed the collapse of the housing bubble. I would like to remind everyone what caused that collapse and who was actually responsible for it.

The root of the collapse of the housing market is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. The idea of the law was to make housing more affordable for low income families and to make sure minorities were not discriminated against. The intentions were good.

In 1995 President Clinton added some new provisions to the Community Reinvestment Act. Part of these revisions allowed CRA loans containing subprime mortgages to be traded with securities. Banks were forced to issue $1 trillion in subprime loans. There were sit-ins at annual meetings of major banks to pressure them to issue loans in risky neighborhoods. Banks were threatened with fines if they denied loans in risky neighborhoods. The normal rules for issuing mortgages were suspended because of government interference and pressure.

In 2000 Fannie Mae announced it would purchase $2 billion of “My Community Mortgage” loans. The idea was to customize affordable products for low and moderate income borrowers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac moved into the subprime mortgage market. Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored entity that guarantees mortgages and then sells them to banks and investors. Fannie Maw pursued subprime mortgages to increase their profit–the more mortgages Fannie Mae sells, the more money it makes. House prices began to rise as more loans became available and more people purchased houses.

Mortgage products were created to make home buying something people at all income levels could afford. Interest only loans, adjustable loans, and variable rate loans were created. Qualifications for borrowers were loosened–no income verification, no money down. Banks had to issue subprime mortgages or face penalties.

In 2004, 92% of Fannie Mae subprime loans were variable rate. In 2005, the number was 91%. Fannie Mae told banks that they would guarantee the subprime loans. House prices rose, interest rates rose, variable interest rates increased and payments got bigger. Gas prices went up, so low-income borrowers were squeezed. Some borrowers stopped paying, and bankers stopped lending. The subprime mortgage market collapsed. Foreclosures began, and home prices fell. Banks collapsed due to worthless government sponsored securities.

Before the revisions to the CRA, home prices rose at about the rate of inflation. After the CRA revisions, the rapid rise of home prices created a bubble. When prices rose quickly, speculation also rose. This further fueled the bubble.

In 2003 President Bush proposed an agency inside the Treasury Department to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Democrats in Congress stopped the proposal. Barney Frank, a Democrat Representative from Massachusetts, said that the problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was exaggerated.

In 2005, Senator John McCain warned of a mortgage collapse. Senator McCain sponsored “The Housing Enterprise Regulator Act of 2005 (S.190 109th). The Democrats blocked the bill. He tried again in 2207, and the bill was again blocked.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large campaign donations to members of Congress. They also provided ‘special mortgage rates’ to certain Congressional leaders. Many of the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government officials after the housing crisis–they paid no price for their mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–instead they profited greatly while the bubble was growing and after the collapse.

I tell this story for one reason. We have heard the media blame greedy bankers on the housing market collapse and the economic chaos that followed. Actually, greedy bankers were not the problem–government regulation and Congressmen who accepted contributions and sweetheart loan deals from mortgage companies were. Why were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored agencies, making campaign contributions?

This is one aspect of the swamp Donald Trump was elected to drain. People connected to the mortgage companies or the government walked away from the housing bubble with millions; many average Americans lost their homes and their jobs. It is ironic that President Obama, who should have been able to relate to the Middle Class, decimated the Middle Class during his eight years in office. I am thankful that we have elected someone as President who has business experience and a proven history of economic success.

Making The World A More Dangerous Place

Posted on by

One of the best articles explaining the history and consequences of the recent abstention vote by America at the U.N. was posted at PJMedia on Saturday. The article was written by Claudia Rosett.

The article reports:

To President Obama‘s legacy of foreign policy debacles, we can now add his landmark betrayal of Israel, carried out Dec. 23rd at the United Nations. By declining to wield the U.S. veto at the Security Council, by choosing instead to abstain — by Vanishing-from-Behind — Obama allowed the passage, by a vote of 14 in favor, 1 abstaining, of Resolution 2334. In the guise of condemning Israeli settlements, this resolution is configured to delegitimize and imperil Israel itself, America’s longtime ally and the only democracy in the Middle East.

With that signal abstention, Obama abandoned decades of U.S. practice of defending Israel against the bigots and thug governments that routinely sit on the Security Council, including permanent members Russia and China, and their rotating sidekicks, such as Venezuela. As a Wall Street Journal editorial accurately put it, referring to the U.S. abstention: “What it reveals clearly is the Obama administration’s animus against the state of Israel itself. No longer needing Jewish votes, Mr. Obama was free, finally, to punish the Jewish state in a way no previous president has done.”

This can be undone, although it will be difficult. There is the possibility that this will result in the end of any relevancy the U.N. might have had. I suspect President Trump will give the U.N. a choice–undo the resolution or lose the financial support of America. Since America provides about a quarter of the funding for the U.N., that could be interesting. The fly in the ointment might be that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which has become a major power bloc in the U.N., might decide to use some of the oil money America supplies to their countries to fund the U.N. This is another reason America needs to become energy independent. Because the U.N. has advanced the cause of Sharia Law and terrorism by its refusal to condemn the violence against Christians and Jews in the Middle East by Muslims, the OIC might be willing to keep the U.N. funded. This could get very interesting as soon as Donald Trump takes office.

One of the highlights of the article is a reference to an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

The article explains:

In 1989, Kirkpatrick published in Commentary magazine an essay of scorching clarity, on “How the PLO Was Legitimized.” Kirkpatrick described Yasir Arafat and the PLO as “attempting to come to power through international diplomacy — reinforced by murder.”

In richly documented detail, Kirkpatrick explained how the UN had become the prime vehicle for this odyssey. She wrote about the duplicities this entailed, and the dangers:

The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.

Plenty has happened in the 27 years since Kirkpatrick wrote those words. But the Palestinian duplicities, diplomatic manipulations and acts of terror persist, including the campaign — with UN complicity, now abetted by Obama — to delegitimize Israel.

I suspect history will not be kind to President Obama.

You Can’t Vet This Number Of People

Posted on by

Breitbart.com posted an article today about the number of refugees President Obama is bringing into America.

The article reports:

The Obama administration has accepted 25,584 refugees into the United States in the two months and 26 days since FY 2017 began on October 1, according to the Department of State interactive website. That number is nearly double the 13,791 refugees accepted during the comparable period between October 1, 2015 and December 26, 2015 of the prior fiscal year (FY 2016).

It is also more than the previous high for the Obama administration during his eight years in office, which occurred in FY 2013 when 18,228 refugees were accepted between October 1, 2012 and December 26, 2012.

The Obama administration appears to be rushing as many refugees as possible into the country before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 45th President on January 20, 2017. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to pause the resettlement of refugees who come from Syria or other countries that have a history of hostility to the United States.

Taking in such a large number of refugees who (based on past experience with Muslim immigrants) may choose not to assimilate is a danger to America. If these refugees were thoroughly vetted and wanted to assimilate into American culture, they would be an asset to America. Without vetting and without the requirement to assimilate, they are a threat to America. Britain and Europe already have Sharia Courts and no-go zones. Does American want to learn from their mistakes or follow them down a path of destruction?

The actions of President Obama in recent days have been unbelievably destructive. I am reminded of the way that former President Bush made sure President Obama had a smooth transition into the White House. It seems as if President Obama is choosing to act as a spoiled dictator in his last days in office. I just hope President Trump can quickly undo some of the damage to America President Obama has done.

Raising Law-Abiding Citizens–Not!

Posted on by

America has a Constitution and is theoretically under the rule of law–equal justice for everyone. However, we evidently have people among us who don’t support the basic idea of enforcing our existing laws.

Andrea Dillon posted an article at American Lens today about guide that was emailed to employees of the Orange County (California) school system.

The article reports on the guide:

Employees within Orange County Schools recently received an email containing a document which demonizes the department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The document also outlined how educators can instruct illegal immigrant children to evade law enforcement.

The document is titled, Immigrant and Refugee Children, A Guide for Educators and Support Staff.  The authors of the document are United We Dream, The National Immigration Law Center, First Focus and the AFL-CIO’s American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

This guide document talks about the increased level of ICE raids under the Obama administration, specifically targeting youth ages 18 and under.  The guide gives a variety of statistics on illegal immigrant children, who the guide refers to as ‘”unaccompanied children.”

Orange County Schools -AFT-ICE-GuideIncluded in the guide was a large picture, allegedly an ICE agent, towering over some children while wearing a scary mask. This portion of the image is pictured to the right.

I understand that there are issues concerning children who were brought here illegally through no fault of their own, but instructing these children and their families to fear ICE is not going to accomplish anything.

Seth Stephens, Communications Director for Orange County Schools, has stated that the document distributed was not approved by the school district. He also stated that the district will honor the law.

The article further states:

Stephens also commented that the district was having a difficult time ‘tracking down’ the original email suggesting distribution of the document.

Sources inside Orange County Schools tell American Lens that the document traces back to Sherita Cobb, Director of Student Support Services for the district.

The document was apparently forwarded on multiple times, including a blind carbon copy to American Lens staff. It is unclear why the document was sent out to other employees given the statement from Seth Stephens.

First of all, we need to secure our borders. Second of all, we need to find out who is here illegally. When we get a handle on the number of people here illegally, where they are from, and whether or not they are interested in assimilating and becoming part of America, then we can formulate a plan of action. A Somali refugee who does not want to live under the U.S. Constitution needs to be treated differently than an eighteen year refugee from South America old who does. It is time to get an accurate count of who is here illegally and where they are from. That would be a good starting point.

A Really Disgraceful Legacy

Posted on by

There are no words to describe fully what the Obama Administration did at the United Nations this week.

Tablet Magazine posted the following statement by the Prime Minister’s Office in Israel:

“Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms. At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half a million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall “occupied territory.” The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against this gang-up at the UN, it colluded with it behind the scenes. Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.”

The article further reports:

The resolution was authored by Egypt, which shelved the draft after the Netanyahu government reached out to the transition team of President-elect Donald Trump, which then pressured Cairo to drop the resolution. Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal, and New Zealand say that if Egypt doesn’t push forward, they will. The resolution will permanently enshrine as a matter of international law that the Western Wall is “occupied Palestinian territory,” and that Jews building homes in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is illegal. One prominent member of the pro-Israel community in Washington called the resolution “a nuclear bomb.”

The Obama Administration is already briefing friendly press organizations that they’re showing no animus toward the Jewish state in refusing to veto the resolution. Rather, it’s “tough love”: for an Israel that seems not to have the will or vision to take chances for peace.

That’s not how Israel sees it. As a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem told Tablet: “President Obama and Secretary Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the UN. The US administration secretly cooked up with the Palestinians an extreme anti Israeli resolution behind Israel’s back which would be a tailwind for terror and boycotts and effectively make the Western Wall occupied Palestinian territory. President Obama could declare his willingness to veto this resolution in an instant but instead is pushing it. This is an abandonment of Israel which breaks decades of US policy of protecting Israel at the UN and undermines the prospects of working with the next administration of advancing peace.”

What really concerns me about this resolution is the idea that building homes in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is illegal. This resolution will not bring peace–it will encourage more violence on the part of those who want to see Israel destroyed. For evidence of the success of ‘land for peace’ all you have to do is look at the Gaza Strip, now a launching pad for launching rockets at civilians in Israel.

Article 1 of the United Nations Charter states:

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

  1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

In my opinion they have not lived up to their charter and need to be disbanded. Where is the outcry about the killing of Christians in the Middle East and Africa? Where is the outcry against the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia? Where is the outcry against the killing of homosexuals in Iran? It is truly time for the United Nations to go away.

Meanwhile, I hope the Trump Administration will either undo what has just been done or else simply defund the United Nations.

Creating A Problem Where There Shouldn’t Be One

Posted on by

Townhall.com posted an article yesterday about the plans for an upcoming concert. Somehow politics has crept into all areas of our lives and we are no longer capable of simply enjoying art and entertainment together. This phenomena is not the result of the election of Donald Trump–he hasn’t taken office yet and was only elected a few weeks ago–it is something that has been building in recent years. Somehow, an idea has taken hold in certain areas of our society that people who do not agree with certain voices on the political left must be punished in some way. To call that idea divisive is the understatement of the year.

The Townhall article reports:

While there are few actually confirmed details as of now, there’s apparently a massive, star-studded “We The People” concert being planned for Miami on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration. The idea is to counter Trump’s inauguration and garner higher television ratings than the swearing-in. Normally, the presidential inaugurals carry several a-list acts, but Trump has had issues booking artists to perform. So far, the only confirmed acts are Jackie Evancho (singing the National Anthem), the Rockettes, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

What are the people planning this concert trying to do? To me, this looks like a bunch of spoiled brats throwing a temper tantrum.

The article concludes:

While artists and concert promoters are free to do whatever they’d like, this still strikes me as being rather petty. Donald Trump won the election and he was elected president of the United States. He will continue to be president of the United States even if nobody watches him be sworn in because they’re too distracted by the likes of Madonna and Lady Gaga. A mega-concert cannot change the fact that he won more Electoral College votes than Hillary Clinton did.

As I said, Donald Trump has not taken office yet. Is this an example of the divisiveness and unwillingness to work together that the Obama Administration has left us with?

 

Former Governor Dalrymple’s Statement About the Dakota Access Pipeline

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Grand Forks Herald posted former Governor Dalrymple’s statement regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline. As usual, much of what you have read in the press is untrue.

This some of what the former Governor said:

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been marred by a steady stream of misinformation and rumor. As governor of North Dakota, I feel it’s important to share facts regarding the route, permitting and our North Dakota law enforcement’s exemplary management of protesters.

North Dakota’s connection to the pipeline began in 2014 when Energy Transfer Partners officially filed an application for corridor compatibility and a route permit through our Public Service Commission. It is the job of our three-person elected commission to handle all such matters according to state law. A 13-month review process included public-input meetings held across the state. As a result of these meetings, the route was modified 140 times to ensure environmental safety, including a shift to follow an existing gas pipeline corridor so an entirely new pathway didn’t have to be created. The final route was legally approved and permitted by the state of North Dakota. The location for the crossing of the Missouri River was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And the easement was forwarded to the assistant secretary for signature.

There are some essential facts in this unfolding situation.

  • First and foremost, not one person from the tribe attended any of the meetings and hearings publicly noticed by state regulators over the course of two years.Second, the pipeline’s permitted route never crosses tribal land.
  • Those opponents who cite the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie to dispute who owns the lands conveniently ignore the later treaty of 1868.
  • Finally, with respect to the pipeline’s proximity to the Standing Rock Reservation’s water supply, its existing intake already was scheduled to be shut down by the end of 2016 and replaced by an intake in South Dakota, some 70 miles away.

All of these facts were validated by a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., who ruled against a request for an injunction.

While the right to disagree with projects such as the Dakota Access Pipeline absolutely exists, and those who disagree are welcome to exercise their right to free speech to declare that, it never should be acceptable to ignore straightforward facts and trample on a legal process that was followed carefully. It is unacceptable that the facts of the permitting process not only were omitted in much of the discussion among those who disagreed with the pipeline but were twisted in order to paint the state of North Dakota and federal government as reckless and racist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

…Who were these people who came from all over the country to Cannonball? Hundreds of them were peaceful protesters, drawn to the general cause of environmental protection by a flood of social media calls for “help.” But many were actually professional agitators recruited by large environmental activist organizations to intimidate people to drop their support for the project. This subgroup hurled rocks and debris at law enforcement and harassed their families. What started out as a tribe’s objections to a pipeline siting grew into something far different.

This particular pipe is state-of-the-art when it comes to safety. It will be buried 92 feet below the bottom of the Missouri River. It will be double the strength of the pipe buried on land. And it will have sophisticated flow-monitoring devices on both sides of the river with automatic shut-off valves.

To date, the 1,172-mile pipeline is virtually complete from North Dakota to Illinois — with the exception of this river crossing. When complete, the pipeline will deliver one-half of the petroleum production from the Bakken region to markets throughout the U.S. And it will be much, much safer from an environmental standpoint than the alternative modes of truck or rail transportation. Again, the pipeline does not cross reservation land.

Please follow the link to read the entire article and the entire statement. One thing to remember here is that there are people who will make a lot of money if this pipeline is not built. Those people own the rail cars the oil is currently being transported on. Pipelines have a much better safety record than rail cars and have a much lower carbon footprint, so the protest cannot really be about the environment. Also, many of the protesters are paid protesters. It would be interesting to know who is paying them and how much.

The statement concludes:

What ultimately has happened is that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s voice now largely has become overshadowed. Environmental activist organizations, which never before showed much interest in North Dakota, used a massive social-media machine to drive misinformation about the pipeline and protests and to accuse law enforcement and the National Guard of criminal mistreatment of protesters. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now that winter, including several feet of snow and subfreezing temperatures, has settled into our state, law enforcement and several neighboring communities have gone above and beyond to help rescue and shelter people who came unprepared. Public schools have been opened as shelters, and law enforcement repeatedly has given warnings to safely leave camp ahead of major storms.

We are proud of the restraint and the professionalism of our law enforcement officers. Attacks on their conduct have been totally inaccurate, and I hope time will help reveal the facts surrounding this ongoing situation and that reason will prevail.

Like it or not, our economy is carbon-fuel dependent. Until the technology in green energy improves, that is not going to change. Oddly enough, the technology in green energy will not improve until the government removes itself from the green energy market–right now green energy depends on government subsidies and has no reason to become more efficient. The government’s support of companies like Solyndra did not advance the cause of green energy. The free market will advance green energy if it is allowed to function as it should.

This Article Is From Linkedin

Posted on by

Linkedin posted the following on December 19th. I am posting this as it was posted because it is so well written there is nothing I can add.

Why Marines Being Chosen for High Leadership Positions Eat Last?

  • Published on

 

Capt USMC (Ret.) / Screenplay Writer/ Wounded Warrior

America is about to be exposed to some new and extraordinary leadership traits. With Generals Mattis (Defense Secretary), Dunford (Joint Chiefs of Staff), and Kelly (Secretary of Homeland Security) nominated to high positions, the spotlight will be on the Marine Corps and their tribal culture. This means Marine leadership styles, principles, and traits will soon become apparent; Read about more of these in the article “Why Marine Officers are Being Chosen for High Positions”.

“Selfless leadership” will become a leadership buzz term. Americans will soon find out that all three of these gentlemen have one thing in common; they eat last. You will not find a single officer in the Marines who eats before an enlisted Marine. If you do find a person in a Marine officer uniform eating first, call the police because this person is a Russian spy. Why is this important? The officer eats last to set precedence that their Marines come first. To understand this, you must know a few things about how the Marine Corps leaders form their bonds with enlisted.

Officers are trained by enlisted. As candidates, they are grounded into Second Lieutenants by enlisted Drill Instructors. If they make it and become officers, enlisted subject matter experts teach them how to shoot, move, and communicate (fight). Once they become platoon commanders, those same enlisted that trained them, will now be under their command. From that point forward, an officer is expected to serve his men and women, not the other way around.

Officers serve their enlisted because they are the ones who are at the tip of the spear on each mission; they provide the guidance that helps them lead. Good senior enlisted leadership will ensure their officers do not fail. Officers rely on their enlisted throughout their entire careers. Each officer in command will have a voice in his or her ears at all times because they have a high ranking enlisted assigned to them.

The Senior Staff Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) knows the pulse of the Marines and understands that he is the crucial link to ensuring that all Marines in the unit are trained, ready, and performing well. Each officer is not one man or woman; they are a system, and they are an embodiment of a symbiotic relationship between themselves and their enlisted leaders.

Disturbing On Many Levels

Posted on by

By now we have all heard the story of Matthew Lasner and his husband, who were removed from a JetBlue flight for harassing Ivanka Trump. However, I doubt that you have heard the entire story. A website I am an unfamiliar with, Heavy.com, posted details of some information I have seen referred to elsewhere.

Heavy.com posted a tweet:

The intention here was to harass another passenger on the plane. How noble. It gets even worse. According to Heavy.com, and other sources, Mr.. Lasner is a professor at Hunter College. What kind of example is he setting for his students? What is he teaching his students? According to the article, Matthew Lasner is married to Daniel Goldstein, a New York Attorney. Mr. Goldstein was holding their child as he was yelling at Ivanka Trump. Great example to set for your child.

The Washington Examiner also carried the story yesterday, noting that it had been sanitized in the mainstream media.

The Washington Examiner reported:

Lasner later deleted the tweets, and he appears to have suspended his Twitter account altogether following the incident.

JetBlue later put out a statement reading, “The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly. If the crew determines that a customer is causing conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation during flight. In this instance, our team worked to re-accommodate the party on the next available flight.”

I would not have been so accommodating.

Some of the mainstream media reports of the incident are included in The Washington Examiner article:

From the Associated Press: “Man says he and husband removed from JetBlue flight after ‘expressing displeasure’ that Ivanka Trump was aboard.”

From Yahoo News: “Man kicked off JetBlue flight for questioning why Ivanka Trump was on it.”

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: “Passengers kicked off flight after run-in with Ivanka Trump.”

From the Washington Post: “Passenger who confronted Ivanka Trump gets kicked off Jet Blue flight.”

I can’t remember anyone ever doing anything similar to any of the Obama family members when they were out in the public–the girls at concerts or shopping. This is disgraceful. There need to be serious consequences for this sort of behavior. You can disagree with anyone politically for any reason, but you do not have the right to harass them or their family.

The President-Elect Is Already Making A Difference

Posted on by

One of the main differences between President Obama and President-elect Trump is their attitude toward Israel. President Obama supported a two-state peace solution involving the United Nations; Donald Trump seems to be moving in a different direction

Yahoo News is reporting today that the UN Security postponed a vote on a draft resolution demanding that Israel halt its settlement activities as President-elect Donald Trump weighed in and said the United States should veto the measure.

I would like to say a few things about the two-state peace solution. Israel dragged its citizens out of the Gaza Strip in 2005 and gave the land to the Palestinians (there actually are no Palestinians–that term was invented after the six day war. As Walid Shoebat stated, “One day during the 1960s I went to bed a Jordanian Muslim, and when I woke up the next morning, I was informed that I was now a Palestinian Muslim, and that I was no longer a Jordanian Muslim.”). At the time it was turned over, the Gaza Strip had greenhouses and infrastructure that supported its citizens economically. The new residents promptly destroyed those greenhouses–taking away their route to prosperity. They then used money given to them by generous (but mislead) countries to buy rockets to lob into Israel. Why in the world should we create another terrorist state? It is obvious that those claiming to be Palestinians have no intentions of making peace with Israel–the charter of the PLO states that Israel has no right to exist. It is time to ask the other Arabs in the Middle East to set aside some of their large acreage of land for the Palestinians. However, that will never happen because the Palestinians are useful tools in the fight to destroy Israel. President-elect Trump has promised to support Israel. I believe that will be a blessing to Israel and to America. Israel has been our only true friend in the Middle East.

The United Nations is not a friend of Israel. It never has been. That was recently admitted by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (story here). We really need to look at the direction the U.N. has taken in recent years and think about whether or not we choose to be part of it.

Character Does Matter–One Senator Seem To Be Lacking In That Area

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about retiring Senator Harry Reid. Harry Reid was one of the most divisive and obnoxious Senators every to have a leadership position in the Senate. Comments he made during one of his parting interviews did not help his image as a very dishonest man.

The article reports:

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he “did what was necessary” in 2012 when he falsely accused Mitt Romney of not having paid his taxes for 10 years.

Reid was asked about those comments, which he made during a speech on the Senate floor, in response to call during a live interview on Las Vegas’ KNPR.

The caller asked Reid if he thought that “the brazen lie he told about Mitt Romney not pay his taxes has in anyway contributed to the fake news debate that we now find ourselves in.”

Reid, who is leaving the Senate next month, denied the accusation. But he offered up a flimsy and fact-devoid defense of those 2012 claims.

The article continues:

“First of all, there were no brazen lies. What I said is the truth,” he maintained.

“There’s no brazen lies. I did what was necessary,” he said a few moments later.

…In September 2012, Romney released a notarized letter from his tax preparer showing that he paid state and federal income taxes for the previous 20 years. The lowest federal tax rate he incurred during that span was 13.66 percent, according to the documents he released.

The is the integrity level of the current Democratic Party. They should be ashamed.

But They Didn’t Mean To Break The Law…

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted an article yesterday about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its compliance with the laws concerning archiving federal documents.

The article reports:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials only archived 86 text messages out of 3.1 million agency employees sent and received in 2015, according to a federal watchdog’s report made public Wednesday by House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith.

The EPA Office of Inspector General (IG) released the report requested by the Texas Republican, which described enormous text message retention problems within the EPA. One unnamed senior official configured his phone to automatically delete texts after 30 days.

Obviously this sort of behavior makes transparency in government a joke.

The article further reports:

The IG claimed EPA officials never “intentionally” violated the Federal Records Act and did not include the low number of archived texts in the body of its report, relaying it instead to congressional staff.

Multiple federal laws and regulations require that officials preserve all documents — including email and text messages — created in the course of conducting official business of the U.S. government.

This is not acceptable behavior. This is one reason Donald Trump was elected–Americans expect him to drain the swamp that Washington, D.C. has become. President Obama promised a transparent administration. He has given us anything but.

About The Popular Vote vs. The Electoral College Thing

Posted on by

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the final numbers from the 2016 Presidential Election.

The article reports some amazing statistics:

If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)

Meanwhile, if you look at every other measure, Trump was the clear and decisive winner in this election.

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
_________________
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
_________________
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
_________________
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
_________________
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million

This is a stunning example of the reason our Founding Fathers made the Electoral College part of the U.S. Constitution. Do you really want California determining who will be President?

Why North Carolina Should Not Repeal HB2

Posted on by

HB2 was known as the ‘bathroom bill.’ What wasn’t mentioned was that it also applied to high school locker rooms, health club locker rooms, and other public locker rooms, generally assumed to be segregated according to sex. As long as HB2 was in place, your high school daughter in the high school locker room was not in danger of being walked in on by the high school football team or any member thereof. Now the Governor of North Carolina has decided that since Charlotte says it will repeal the law that made HB2 necessary (the Charlotte bathroom bill was unconstitutional according to the North Carolina Constitution), he wants the legislature to repeal HB2. Well, not so fast. Let’s look at some of the events surrounding the original dust-up.

Yesterday, The Daily Haymaker posted an article about the repeal of HB2.The article reminds us:

Let’s go back to the point about Charlotte’s initial move being unconstitutional. Now, WHO is responsible for dealing with actions that violate the state constitution?  Why, the elected attorney general.  If he refuses to do his job, as he has soooooo often,  the state has to shell out money to go to court itself.

So, Roy Cooper neglects one of the primary responsibilities of his job.  Gets caught lobbying businesses to avoid North Carolina because of HB2.  He spends nearly a whole year lying about HB2 to voters.  Now, the drive by media is ready to coronate him as a HERO.

So, what happens now — after HB2 is repealed — and, say, Carrboro tries something similar?  We have ANOTHER useless bastard in the attorney general’s office who likely ignores it.  And we’re right back into it.

The idea to repeal HB2 is a trap. It is the carrot over the door to the trap that the Republicans are supposed to walk into.

I need to state here that I do not think transgender people pose a threat to anyone. The threat exists in unstable people claiming to be transgender who are no such thing. The threat exists in a dare on the part of high school boys to go into the girls’ locker room. The threat exists in someone claiming to be transgender taking pictures in the dressing room at Target (that has already happened). The transgender population represents less than 1 percent of the American population. Why are endangering women and children for less than 1 percent of the population? Do you really believe that most family men want men or boys in the locker rooms used by their wives and daughters? Do you really believe that high school girls want boys walking into their locker rooms?

Leave the law in place–it represents common sense–men’s bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women’s bathrooms and locker rooms for women. It’s really not that hard.

This Should Be All Over The News

Posted on by

Yesterday Townhall.com posted an article about a Senate Report on Planned Parenthood.  The mainstream media somehow neglected to cover the story.

The article provides a link to the report here. It is a disturbing report.

The article includes some excerpts from the report:

Matching up documents and invoices the Committee found just how one $15 an hour “technician” spent an hour of his time in early summer 2014.

“For Example on one day in June 2014, the ABR technician obtained a 20 week old fetes at a [Planned Parenthood] clinic. From that one fetus, ABR sold its brain to one customer for $325; both of its eyes for $325 each ($650 total) to a second customer, a portion of its liver for $325 to a third customer; its thymus and for $325 and another portion of liver to a fourth customer; and its lung for $325 to a fifth customer. These fees are merely the service fees for the specimens themselves; ABR separately charged each customer for shipping, disease, screening, cleaning and freezing, as applicable. So from that single fetus for which ABR paid a mere $60, ABR charged its customers a total of $2,275 for tissue specimens, plus additional charges for shipping and disease screening.”

…ABR invoices show the same prices were charged for the parts of a 21-week-old Down Syndrome fetus, except that a buyer was found to pay $325 for a leg and an extra $325 for the baby’s skin. Yes, you read that correctly. In America, in 2016, you can buy the skin of a Down Syndrome fetus for the very reasonable price of just $325 (plus shipping).

And the technicians are efficient. They can do several fetuses in a morning. According to the company’s’ own documents one technician did four in a morning – harvesting body parts that they were able to sell for $6,825 and that does not include a hefty cost per part for “shipping, disease testing, cleaning and freezing…..which were subject to separate fees.”

The article concludes:

It says something about the quality of the Senate report that their part about Planned Parenthood’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy is the least shocking. In 2001, Planned Parenthood did have a policy stating that its clinics had to have an independent accountant verify it was not profiting from the sale of body parts. Those who did not follow these guidelines could be thrown out of the Planned Parenthood network, they were warned. In 2011, when they found out their clinics were ignoring these guidelines, Planned Parenthood quietly deleted the guidelines from its requirements. By doing so Planned Parenthood headquarters made it quite clear they would not stand in the way of their clinics profiting from the sale of baby parts.

Or as the Senate Committee put it, by behaving “in a manner that facilitated the continuation of those fetal tissue payments. Planned Parenthood and the affiliates actions may implicate the federal criminal conspiracy staute18 USC/ 371.”

The report is long and detailed – it is a journalist’s dream – the committee have basically done all the investigative work, they have the contracts and the invoices, they have the internal documents. But it has basically gone unreported. As the media frets about fake news and a loss of authority, they might think about covering stories that challenge their beliefs and the beliefs of their friends.

This is what the pro-abortion movement has become. I need to state that I do not want abortion made illegal–there are times when an abortion has to be done to save the life of a mother. Those occasions are rare, however, and should be done in a hospital under the supervision of a doctor. Abortion should not be an industry where profits are measured in billions of dollars. That is what it has become. Is there anyone left in the pro-abortion movement with a conscience who is willing to speak out against the selling of aborted baby body parts? This is no longer about reproductive rights–it is about the dismembering and selling of body parts of the most defenseless members of our society. What does that say about us as a society?