Convention of States

Logo1

Convention of States

Let’s be honest.  Washington is not going to fix itself.   Currently there are 29 US Senators and 66 House representatives who have served 20 years or more in Congress!  It was never the intent of the Founding Fathers to have career politicians serving in Congress.  As a matter of fact, in the Articles of Confederation, the document which preceded the Constitution, there was a provision which in essence established term limits for delegates.

This was created by using a clip art version of the flag, my photo of Ind. Hall, and my photo of JM at portrait gallery. Aug. 14-15, 2005.Eventually, during the ratification debates on the Constitution, James Madison said, “I dislike, and strongly dislike … the abandonment, in every instance, of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President…”

Given this information, why would they ratify the Constitution without a clause for term limits?  At the time the Constitution was ratified, serving in Congress was viewed as a part-time job, where upon returning to their home state, these representatives would return to their normal occupations.  The thought of any representative making a career out of serving in Congress seemed illogical.

Today we have congressmen who not only serve full-time in Congress, they have turned it into their career.    Certainly these career politicians have no incentive to pass any legislation that would set term limits.  Doing that would only serve to shorten their own careers.

The idea of having career congressmen poses serious problems.  An inherent problem is clearly their motivation for serving.  Members of congress who have, or aspire to make a career out of being in Washington are naturally going to face the conflict of interest between doing what is best to serve their constituents and doing what is best to serve themselves.

Today, this problem surfaces all too frequently.  We don’t have look much further than to Paul Ryan who was elected in the House to replace former Speaker 102915_ryan_remarks2_1280John Boehner.  Ryan who is a Republican from Wisconsin, campaigned as a conservative, and during his early years in the House appeared to conduct himself as the fiscal conservative he claimed to be.  Since becoming Speaker of the House, we are seeing an altogether different side of Paul Ryan.  He’s been a member of Congress since 1998, falling short of the 20-year mark by only three years.

The other Republican leader in Congress, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell has spent 20 years in Washington.  He won re-election to the Senate during the last midterm elections by running on the promise of repealing Obamacare.  A promise his constituents in the Commonwealth of Kentucky believed. mcconnell-leid Obviously McConnell’s motivation was purely to retain his seat in the US Senate.  Since re-election, he has made no significant effort towards the repeal of Obamacare.  In an article written yesterday at ConservativeReview.com, McConnell admits to empowering liberal democrats and essentially capitulating to them.

Congressmen can assure themselves of making a career out of being in Washington by looking to the K-Street lobbyists.  These lobbyists provide the money trail that turn congressmen who make just under $200,000 annually, into incredibly rich individuals.  Lobbyists1The promise of a wealthy career in Washington is simply too good to pass up.  As an example, John Boehner was considered more accomplished at fundraising than anything else he did as Speaker of the House.

Washington is broken and it is going to simply get worse unless there is a way to rein in the power of the government.  In August 2013, Mark Levin released a book entitled, “The Liberty Amendments”.  In  his book, Levin points to Article 5 of the Constitution as a means to fix what is broken in Washington.  During his radio show, he’s frequently credited the Founding Fathers with providing us with this option as an emergency  measure to preserve the Constitutional Republic.  Levin proposes several amendments, and among them is an amendment to set term limits for Congress.  If you have yet to read this book, I strongly encourage you to do so as it gives hope during a time of increasing despair.  He’s made the first chapter of this book publicly available here, where you can read the case he builds for enacting Article 5, Convention of States.   article5

I am a very strong supporter of the Convention of States process, but I think it’s crucial for everyone to form their own opinion.  I encourage all conservative patriots, at the very least, to take the time to read the first chapter of Mark’s book which I’ve made available to you above.  After you finish reading the chapter, please peruse the Convention of States website here, to learn more about it and to discover what you can do to support this cause.

God Bless America!

Please follow and like us:
0

Small Business Losing Liberty

Logo1

Small Business Losing Liberty

Recently I was asked by someone why I felt Americans are losing their individual liberty.  It’s hard to believe that there are so many out there who fail to see the frequency with which our individual liberties are being taken from us.    Most often it is the federal government that steps out of bounds.  Obamacare is a prime example of the impact government has had on businesses and individuals alike.  But we even see such overreach at the local level of government as well.  Today’s example involves the impact local government has on businesses, particularly small and privately owned businesses.

Before I get into it, I wouldn’t be surprised if some small minded individuals are going to try and quickly jump into their bag of tricks and cry “homophobia” and “bigotry”.  But if you’re not a bigot, and have an open mind, you’ll see my opinions are not based on anything but my disdain for government intervention.  So here we go…

Just this week, the New York City Commission on Human Rights updated their NYCdiscrimination laws based on gender identity or expression.    Below is an excerpt from within these laws:

Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.10

Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth. All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL.

Apparently, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander in this situation.  Like other laws we are familiar with, the government can apparently exempt themselves.  A business, particularly a small business could be significantly impacted by this law above.  It’s been reported by Breitbart that a violation of this law could result in a fine of up to $250,000.  

Imagine being the owner of a small pizza shop in NYC.  A customer calls to place an order under the name Caitlyn (why not?).  The employee who handles the pizzasliceorder recognizes the customer’s voice as a male voice and ends the call with a sincere, “Thank you for your order sir”.  Under these laws, the owner could be subject to such an exorbitant fine that it results in the owner needing to shut down their business.

To avoid such a fine, NYC suggests the employer develop a policy in which their employees ask customers to identify their preferred gender identification.  Can you imagine the impact this would have on business?  I don’t know about you, but if I were the customer and had to be asked about my gender, I’d immediately infer an existence of gender discrimination! Absolutely absurd!

Written into these laws is also a section on grooming standards and uniforms based on gender:

Under the NYCHRL, employers and covered entities may not require dress codes or uniforms, or apply grooming or appearance standards, that impose different requirements for individuals based on sex or gender….pin-up-girl-applying-makeup

…Employers and covered entities are entitled to enforce a dress code, or require specific grooming or appearance standards; however it must be done without imposing restrictions or requirements specific to gender or sex. It will not be a defense that an employer or covered entity is catering to the preferences of their customers or clients.

The potential therefore exists for an employer to be guilty of violating this law in any number of ways.  If an employer allows a female sales agent to wear lipstick and nail polish, but refuses to allow a male sales agent the same, then the employer may be in violation.  And based on the law, the employer cannot justify their decision based on what their customers like or dislike.

This is not free-market enterprise.  What NYC has done is just another example of government intervention and loss of liberty.  In this case, as is the case with regulations created by the federal government, businesses lose.   As I’ve pointed out, the businesses most at risk are small and privately owned businesses.  These laws and regulations play right into the hands of crony capitalism.

Interestingly, those who create these types of laws and call for increased regulations, are the same people who are first to call out corporations for being greedy.

“Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.” – Bernie Sandersbernie

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington,Wednesday, May 6, 2015. Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif. unveiled legislation they will introduce to break up the nation's biggest banks. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

I wonder if Bernie ever considered that more regulation only compounds the problems facing middle class Americans?  Middle class Americans are greatly impacted by the success or failure of small businesses.  Small businesses who ultimately pay the greatest price for such laws and regulations.  http://www.inc.com/jared-hecht/are-small-businesses-really-the-backbone-of-the-economy.html 

And what would a blog on losing liberty be without a quote from Hillary:

“No. We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.” – Hillary Clinton

I’ve seen what government does and so have you.  If it’s not broke, don’t let the government touch it!

Please follow and like us:
0

Yale Fail!

Logo1

Yale Fail!

There’s a term that tends to fly around whenever we are in an election cycle.  That term is “low-information voter”.   Unfortunately, this is a pretty accurate assessment of a significant proportion of America today.  An idealist might say everyone should be fully aware of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the political environment, and the issues of the day.  An optimist might say that most should have some general awareness and understanding of the same.

I’d like to think that our younger generation, especially those who attend Ivy League schools would satisfy the viewpoint of the optimist.  After all, this group represents our future and we would expect anyone who is accepted into an Ivy Yale-University-LogoLeague school to have above average intellect.

Sadly, I am mistaken.  US political satirist and filmmaker Ami Horowitz approached the students at Yale University (one of the most prestigious universities in the world) asking its attendees to sign a petition in favor of repealing the First Amendment.

With minimal coaxing and in about one hour’s time, Horowitz is able to easily persuade 50 students to sign this petition. One might think that students at Yale would be a bit more critical and challenge Horowitz on the petition.  On the contrary.   Without asking a single question, many who approached him spoke in favor of what he was doing and said they agreed with his actions.

The First Amendment states:1stAmendment

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

Ironically, by signing a petition to repeal the First Amendment, the students have essentially signed away their right to freedom of expression (but I’m sure you’ve got that figured out by now).

So what has become of our younger generation?  Why aren’t they aware of the First Amendment?  Is it their fault?  Has education at all levels become nothing more than indoctrination?  I think these are fair questions.  It certainly leads one to wonder how this could happen, especially at such a prestigious university.

If you haven’t yet seen this video, here it is:

 

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Government Shutdowns

Logo1

What You Aren’t Told About a Government Shutdown

“It was over a trillion dollars, it was all lumped together, 2,242 pages, nobody read it, so frankly my biggest complaint is that I have no idea what kind of things they stuck in the bill…I voted against it because I won’t vote for these enormous bills that no one has a chance to read.” – Rand Paul635793162142527949-Rand-Paulcampaigning

If it sounds like Rand Paul is a bit frustrated, can anyone blame him?  This past week we saw a $1.1 trillion spending bill that is well over 2,000 pages passed by both houses of Congress.  Having only one day to read the bill, Congress could not possibly know everything contained in it.  But thanks to some back door agreements, and a bunch of handshakes between members in both parties, the majority of congressional members didn’t hesitate to cast their vote in favor of the bill.  The passage was immediately followed with self-congratulations for avoiding a government shutdown. (If you have a few days, you can read the bill for yourself here.)

For solid conservatives, Rand Paul’s statements ring true.  The problem however, is republicans in Congress who operate under the pretense of being conservative.  Long before this bill came to a vote, establishment republicans were working the airwaves, using fear-mongering tactics, and claiming they would not allow another government shutdown.  Below are a couple of notable quotes from republicans who vowed to avoid a shutdown:

  • “Shutting down the government is not in our political interest, it will undermine the Republican brand …” – Representative Charlie Dent (R-PA)
  • “Having charged up the hill once and been shot down, why would you want to do that again?” – Representative Tom Cole (R-OK)
  • “[A government shutdown] would be an exercise in futility.” – Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY)mcconnell-leid
  • “I don’t want to use a failed tactic for political purposes knowing that it’s not going to succeed.” – Senator Dan Coats (R-IN)
  • “We really need a clean CR if we’re going to avoid a government shutdown.” – Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
  • “The president’s made it clear he is not going to sign it… I’m willing to fight all day long, but you’ve got to have a good prospect of being able to be successful. Because if you’re not successful, you shut the government down, you open it up and you haven’t achieved anything. You’re just going to have people shake their head and wonder what your thinking was.” – Governor John Kasich (R-OH)

Either these republicans are purely defeatists or they are self-preservationists.  I tend to believe it’s the latter.  If you think about it, each of the statements above demonstrate not a will to win, but rather a fear of losing.  Evidently, they are more interested in keeping peace in hopes of living to see another day, than they are in living up to the promises they made to their constituents.

There are some interesting statistics regarding the face of politics since Obama took office.  Since then, Democrats have lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and 913 state legislative seats and 30 state legislative chambers. Included in those numbers are 9 U.S. Senate seats and 14 House seats from the 2014 mid-term elections. Why is that important?  Because those mid-term elections immediately followed the 2013 government shutdown.  A shutdown that the republican establishment feared would ruin their chances to take over the Senate.

So how then did the republicans win so many seats after the 2013 government shutdown?  The answer is quite simple.  America spoke!  You see a government shutdown is not nearly as traumatic as they would lead you to believe.  government-shutdown-make-it-hurt-politifakeThat’s not to say that Obama didn’t take matters into his own hands and do everything he could to make the shutdown of 2013 as painful as possible for the American people.  In case you’ve forgotten, here is an article to jar your memory (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown/).

But the facts regarding government shutdowns are often left unmentioned.  According to Paul Roderick Gregory (a contributor to Forbes,  We are shutting down only thirteen percent of the Government (at most)”.  In his article in October, 2103 he wrote about the impact of a government shutdown.  He continued, “I would not count reducing federal government spending by 13 percent a “shutdown.” A more appropriate term would be a “reduction in non-essential discretionary spending,” or “government slim down” for short.”

Not included in his article is the fact that all federal employees who are furloughed (non-essential personnel who make up the 13%) during a government shutdown, are paid in full as soon as the shutdown comes to an end.  (Here is a list showing the history of US Federal Government shutdowns.)

Given this information, it becomes increasingly clear that the beneficiaries of avoiding a government shutdown are the government and its agencies, not the American people.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting that government shutdowns are a good thing.  I’m simply suggesting they aren’t always a bad thing.  Congress pushing through a 2,000 page spending bill and patting themselves on the back for avoiding a shutdown should not make any of us proud of Washington.  Instead, it should bother the hell out of us!

Please follow and like us:
0

“Hell No!”

Logo1

Ted Cruz:  “Hell No!”

“Typically in the Senate you have two votes, you can vote either yes or no. On this particular matter, my vote I intend to be hell no.  This is what’s wrong with the Washington Cartel.”  This is what Senator Ted Cruz told John Fredericks on his My Approved Portraitsradio show today.  Senator Cruz was referring to the massive $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that was passed by the House.  He continued, “Republican leadership has proven to be the most Democratic leaders we have ever seen,” he said on Thursday. “[This] does not honor the promises we made to the men and women who elected us.”

One can assume the “republican leadership” Cruz was referring to was Speaker Paul Ryan.   Ryan stated, “In divided government, you don’t get everything you want. I think everybody can point to something that gives them a reason to be in favor of both of these bills.”  Unfortunately, there is a major problem with Speaker Ryan’s statement.  Conservatives lost on several issues where they could have leveraged the power of the purse.  Among these losses are restrictions on Syrian and Iraqi refugee resettlement, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and blocking President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

For many conservatives, Paul Ryan’s early tenure as Speaker of the House is looking an awful lot like his predecessor, John Boehner.  The spending bill negotiated by Ryan was released in the late night hours on Tuesday evening and consists of over 2,000 pages.  This gave House Representative and the public less than two days to read and evaluate it before it would be voted on.  Considering Ryan promised to bring order back to the House, this does not bode well for him.  102915_ryan_remarks2_1280In his acceptance speech as Speaker of the House, he said the following:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean. Neither the members nor the people are satisfied with how things are going. We need to make some changes, starting with how the House does business.”

It appears he has a short memory.  Passing an omnibus spending bill that has more pages than representatives have time, is not the change people were anticipating.  Does anyone really believe every member in the House read this bill before they voted on it?  This is what the bill with over 2,000 pages looks like:spending bill

For conservatives, our hope rests with Ted Cruz and the Senate.  Ryan’s bill is basically a blank check handed to Obama to fund many of his unconstitutional programs like: executive amnesty; sanctuary cities; and illegal alien resettlement.  There are a few members in the Senate who, along with Cruz, have expressed their intent to vote “no”.  Let’s hope that list continues to grow.

This bill adds to an ever-growing national debt.  Nothing is free and eventually the laws of economics are going to come calling.  The unfortunate truth is that the burden of this debt will fall on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.  This bill is another example of the irresponsible behavior of congressional leaders.   Rand Paul closed the Republican Presidential Debate this week with the following statement:

“But what most Americans don’t realize is there is an unholy alliance. They come together. There’s a secret handshake. We spend more money on everything. And we are not a stronger nation if we go further into debt. We are not projecting power from bankruptcy court.”

He is right.  Now it’s time for the Senate to do its job and stop this reckless spending in its tracks.

Please follow and like us:
0

Crooked GOP Establishment

Logo1

The Crooked GOP Establishment 

For those who are closely following the GOP Presidential race, you’ve likely heard about this past week’s secret meeting in held in Washington, DC which was organized by RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader.  The goal of this meeting was to discuss the possibility of having a brokered GOP convention in Cleveland next July.   Many have suggested this meeting was convened to thwart Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination for president.

Dr. Ben Carson was an immediate critic of this meeting saying, “If the leaders of the Republican Party want to destroy the party, they should continue to hold shutterstock_326518226meetings like the one described in the Washington Post this morning.”  He continued, “If this was the beginning of a plan to subvert the will of the voters and replace it with the will of the political elite, I assure you Donald Trump will not be the only one leaving the party.  I pray that the report in the Post this morning was incorrect. If it is correct, every voter who is standing for change must know they are being betrayed. I won’t stand for it.

Dr. Carson is not only speaking for himself and on behalf of Donald Trump.  I believe his statements also reflect the feelings of many registered republicans.  The republican party is a party of elitists and a party that rules over their constituents.  They are a party who thrives on power and a party who has a recent history of keeping that power by stealing elections through “subverting the will of the voters”.   As recent as June 2014, the GOP establishment got its hands dirty by engaging in tactics that assured Thad Cochran of the republican nomination for the US Senate in Mississippi.

Steve Deace wrote an article for ConcervativeReview.com  which
described the role of the GOP establishment in the primary election.  Deace writes, “So to sum up, the GOP establishment fought harder and dirtier last year to keep an aging and largely disorientated ConservativeReviewliberal adulterer in the U.S. Senate, than they fought to get Obama out of the White House in 2012. They were more ruthless in defeating a true conservative like McDaniel, who actually represents the majority of Republicans both in Mississippi and nationwide, than they were in trying to defeat a full-blown Marxist in the White House.

A similar situation occurred during the same primary year in Kansas, where an incumbent GOP establishment senator, Pat Roberts defeated conservative candidate, Milton Wolf.  As the election drew near, Pat Roberts (who by the way doesn’t even reside in the state of Kansas) ran a campaign which took a right hand turn and adopted a more conservative flavor in hopes of gaining an edge over Wolf.  You see, when it comes right down to it, even the GOP establishment types know that conservatism will get you votes and get you victories.  So the establishment candidates campaign under the pretense of being conservative.

If you are a true conservative, beware!  As we draw closer to nominating a republican candidate for president, some of the GOP candidates are running under the pretense of being conservative.  They are not conservative.  Lindsey Graham is the epitome of a GOP establishment candidate.  GrahamBut that doesn’t stop him from parading around, spreading false narratives about his conservative stance on issues.  He is currently polling at about 2% nationally and ConservativeReview.com has given Graham a Liberty Score of 38% with an “F” rating.  With such horrendous polling numbers, why hasn’t he abandoned his campaign?  To answer that question, you have to come to the realization that Senators like Lindsey Graham, Pat Roberts, and Thad Cochran do not represent their respective states.  As we noted above, Pat Roberts doesn’t even live in Kansas.   They represent the GOP establishment and will do everything in their power to advance the will of the establishment.

Lindsey Graham is not in the presidential race to win the election.  You will find him on almost every network news outlet these days, trying to remain as relevant as he can.  Why?  Because his goal is not to win, but rather to do the dirty work of the GOP establishment.  He is their pawn.  As long as he remains somewhat relevant and can be in the public eye, he will use every opportunity to keep a true conservative out of the White House.

You see…if a conservative wins, the establishment loses its power.  And for them, maintaining power is what it’s all about.

Please follow and like us:
0

Obama is an Authoritarian

Logo1

Obama is an Authoritarian!

If they weren’t so serious, it would be funny.  Instead it’s sad to see the latest propaganda the leftists are distributing.  Over the last 24 hours you’ve probably seen the meme comparing Donald Trump to Hitler.  If not, here it is:hitler

Please know that I am not endorsing Donald Trump for president.  At this time, he isn’t even my choice.  But that is beside the point.  The idea that the left can compare him to Adolf Hitler is a last resort for them (more on this in a bit).  As a matter of fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if this was actually propagated by the establishment republicans.  Before I get back to this meme, here’s a few items about Donald Trump that scare the hell out of democrats and republicans alike:

  • Politicians say, “He is not who we are”.  Exactly!  And that in itself is threatening to them.  He doesn’t want to be who they are and is calling them out for their self-serving attitude and actions.  They rely on K-Street to survive.  He doesn’t.
  • His campaign is self-funded.  Because he is self-funded, he does not owe allegiance to anyone or any corporation.  The fact that he boasts about his wealth is a message directed at his naysayers and establishment politicians.  It’s like a thorn in their sides that they can’t get rid of.
  • He is a genius negotiator.  The exaggerated statements that come from him are intentional.  If he says something extreme, it allows him to concede to something less.  That something less is really what he wants to achieve in the first place.  He is smarter than they are and plays them like a PS4.   
  • He manipulates the media, getting them to be his best marketing agent.  He knows how to keep himself relevant and this is why he is not going to let anyone force him to go away.  They (status-quo politicians) have tried.  They continue to try.  They will not stop trying.  And all this time they are keeping him relevant through the media.  

Now back to the propagandistic meme above.  As I mentioned, this is the tactic of the left when they run out of chips at the poker table.  When they fall short of valid arguments, they reach to name calling, labeling, and other smear tactics as a last resort.   When the majority of the public agree with “The Donald” (as polls have shown) panic ensues among the left and the establishment.

So let’s put our poker chips on the table with the left and ante up…

The Authoritarian:

obamaimages

  • Uses racism to rise to power, abuse law enforcement, and divide the country by blaming today’s America for yesterday’s ills
  • Nullifies laws and refuses to deport illegal aliens
  • Uses his pen and phone to abuse the power of the Executive Branch
  • Uses the EPA to attack capitalism
  • Forced an ill-conceived health care system on America
  • Bankrupted our children and grandchildren
  • Anti-American fascist
  • Blames America for the world’s problems
  • Thinks Americans should be spied on
  • ….

And there is your meme for the day!

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Groupthink Fail

Logo1

Trump Attacked

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” –http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm


Once again, Donald Trump has ruffled the feathers of the leftist media and their cheerleaders.  This time he did so by proposing a ban on Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”  Groupthink has once again replaced rationality.  bw-trump.finger-1024x699

Imagine if you will, you are the principle of an elementary school.  Whenever one of your teachers is absent (due to illness or otherwise) you need to procure a substitute teacher.  You outsource this responsibility to a placement firm, whoacademic over the years has done a decent job of meeting your requirements.  However over the past year there have been issues.  Some of the students have complained about the demeanor of the substitute teachers and more than one student came forward and said they felt physically threatened on a few occasions. What is your responsibility as the principle?  Naturally it is to look over the well being of the children in that school.  Wouldn’t it seem reasonable to temporarily disallow the use of substitute teachers from that placement firm until you “can figure out what is going on“?  Is your priority with the school or is it with the placement firm?  What parent would argue a dereliction of duty if the principle did the reasonable thing in this situation?

Unfortunately groupthink has told us that Donald Trump is the one being unreasonable for suggesting a temporary stay on allowing Muslims to enter the US.  By now you are probably aware that President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the US during the hostage crisis in 1980.  He did this by invoking the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.  The original purpose of this act was to restrict communists from entering the United States.

20080715_carter_jimmy_18The argument I have heard stemming from the left is that Carter placed a ban on an entire nation of people, not a religious sect.  The argument continues that we have set precedents for travel bans based on political affiliation and health concerns, but never travel bans based on religion.  I would argue that Trump is basing his restriction on a political basis, but more importantly, basing it on the potential of terrorism.  US Code Title 8 Section 1182 on Inadmissible Aliens generally states that any alien who is engaged in, or in any way linked to terrorist activity would be an inadmissible alien (disallowed into the United States).  Interestingly, it also provides us with the following:

“Terrorist activity” defined:  As used in this chapter, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:”  Note:  The “following” would include such things as highjacking or sabotaging vehicles, threatening to kill, injure, or detain individuals, etc.  

For those following along, this groupthink nonsense should come as no surprise.  Those on the left, as well as the GOP establishment, continue to search for ways to attack Trump and derail his campaign.  He is an existential threat to these people.  I don’t know about you, but I believe his thought process on this is rational.  If he were president, I would expect protecting the American people to be his top priority.  Wouldn’t you?

Please follow and like us:
0

Obama’s Gun Control Sales Pitch

Logo1

Selling More Gun Control

Last night Obama went on national television to address the San Bernadino, CA shooting.  (Transcript and video can be found here.)  I listened intently as not far into his speech he began to describe to the American people our history with terrorism since the 9/11 attacks in 2001.  He addressed the Ft. Hood shooting as well as the Boston Bombers.

Obama then moved away from these four major terrorism events on US soil and started discussing the strategy for destroying ISIL.  Keep in mind, just prior to the Paris attacks, he defined ISIL as having been contained using this very strategy.  d1673d91-61a1-4f32-93c3-9f805645c0c1The problem of course is that ISIL is not contained.  Several days ago, General Joe Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the House Armed Services Committee that ISIL is “not contained”.  He went on to say, “Strategically they (ISIL) have spread since 2010.” Last night Obama stated, “It (ISIL strategy) is designed and supported by our military commanders and counter-terrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition.”

It could be argued that the strategy set forth by Obama was failed from the start.  In September 2014, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey stated that the potential exists to recommend ground troops, should Obama’s strategy fail.  Just one day following General Dempsey’s statement, Obama gave a speech to the US Central Command.  In that speech he said, “I will not commit you, and the rest of our armed forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”  Those repeated words have been a point of contention between Obama and some of his top military advisers, despite what Obama said last night in his speech to the nation.

As he raced towards finishing his speech (perhaps he promised some of his media darlings at NBC that he would not interfere with Sunday Night Football), he started discussing how Congress can act to help protect us on our soil.  He went where we all knew he would go, “gun control”.  Being a master of diversion, he used a new tactic to push his gun control agenda.  He tied gun control to the national “no-fly” list.  There are several problems with this.  First, it is quite obvious that not one of the four mentioned terrorist attacks on US soil would have been prevented with gun control measures tied to the “no-fly” list.  The most recent attack in San Bernadino downloadclearly would not have been prevented by means of a “no-fly” list.  Neither terrorist attacker even appeared on a terrorist watch list, so why would we assume they would appear on the “no-fly” list?  Furthermore, it is asinine to think that appearing on a “no-fly” list would have prevented them from obtaining weapons.  It may have prevented them from using legal means to obtain a weapon, but I’m pretty sure that coloring within the lines and not breaking the law was not high on their list of priorities.

And how about the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013?  They should have been on a watch list, but were not.  But let’s suppose they were on a terrorist watch list.  And let’s also suppose they were added to the “no-fly” list.  According to Obama, if we tied gun control to the “no-fly” list they would not have been able to purchase assault weapons.  Last I checked, they used bombs to kill those innocent, unsuspecting citizens at the Boston Marathon, not guns!

The “no-fly” list as it currently exists (even without gun control measure tied to it) has its own set of problems.  First, in order to get placed on this list, the government does NOT have to have evidence that you are a potential terror threat.  The government only needs to have reasonable suspicion that someone poses a threat.  One might think those on the left would be greatly opposed to this “no-fly” list because reasonable suspicion could result in the government using racial profiling when drawing conclusions about reasonable suspicion.  It makes one wonder what secret criteria is being used to justify adding someone to the list.

The “no-fly” list has also seen its share of innocent people who have been wrongly added to the list.  Senator Ted Kennedy is among the many who have found themselves in such a predicament.  Clearing his name was relatively easy, but how about the rest of us?  What hoops will we have to jump through and what sort of legal battles would we have to endure if we found ourselves in the same position?

With all that can be said about the “no-fly” list, why then would Obama suggest tying the “no-fly” list to gun control?  obamaimagesIn his speech he says, “To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”   If you dissect this statement, his tactics become clear:

  1. Obama shifts responsibility to Congress, ridding himself of accountability should Congress not act on this.
  2. He cleverly uses the phrase “allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon”.  And who said if we don’t tie gun laws to the “no-fly” list, that we can automatically assume we are “allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon”?  Those first two sentences are independent of one another, yet he draws a correlation.  As we stated, reasonable suspicion, not necessarily being a terrorist suspect will get your name on the “no-fly” list.  Also, terrorist suspects don’t necessarily use guns.  The terrorists on 9/11 chose much smaller weapons (box cutters) to acquire much larger planes to carry out their acts of terrorism.  Lawless people are defined as those who DO NOT follow the law.  Terrorists are not going to allow laws to thwart their efforts.   So if Congress elects not to create such an empty law, it does not mean they are “allowing” terrorist to buy semi-automatic weapons.  They will get them regardless.
  3. Obama uses national security to drive his gun control agenda.  If he were truly concerned about national security, he would drop this narrative about gun control and put a stop to allowing Syrian refugees into this country until we can properly vet them.  Nothing in his speech to America last evening gave anyone any reason to believe he is sincere about national security.

What he is sincere about, is gun control.  National security be damned!

 

Please follow and like us:
0

America’s War on America

Logo1

American’s War on America

I’ve given myself enough time to digest what transpired in California this week.  To avoid speaking out of place and misdirecting my emotions, I felt it necessary to allow more facts to come to light.  As the evidence becomes more clear, I think this is a more appropriate time to share some thoughts.

Upon review of what I’ve witnessed over the past couple of days, it has become quite evident to me that America is at war with itself.  Yes, I’m using the leftist term “war” to describe what is happening.  The Republic is being threatened by these mini-wars, if you will:

  1. War on Freedom of Speech
  2. War on the 2nd Amendment
  3. War on Freedom of Religion
  4. War on Law Enforcement

War on Freedom of Speech

Prior to this week we’ve seen a myriad of attacks on free speech across several college and university campuses in the US.  I could dissect what is happening on our college campuses, but what has really troubled me since Wednesday is how the American public has become imprisoned by the war on freedom of speech.  The PC crowd and the group think that drives it are to a degree, complicit in what took place in California.  We have become afraid and hesitant to speak our minds.  We are encouraged to speak out if we see suspicious activity, but the fear of reprisal has hindered our common sense.  By now you’ve likely heard about the neighbor of these two California-based terrorists (as defined today by the FBI) who failed to inform authorities of the suspicious activities they observed because of the fear of being labeled a “racist” and being accused of racial profiling.  This is absurd, but it is happening.  And I’m sure there are many others across this country who are equally fearful.  How many more attacks might we see because people are indirectly  being discouraged to act?

War on the 2nd Amendment

Almost immediately following the tragic events, politicians on the left took to social media to politicize it.  There were immediate calls for more gun control.  What was missing from their argument was the fact that this incident took place in a state with one of the strictest set of gun control laws in this country.  Additionally, the left  and the liberal media assume that tougher gun laws and increased restrictions could have prevented the attack.  And of course, if you don’t side with them, they fully exercise their right to freedom of speech by launching unfounded attacks.  Today’s cover page of the NY Daily News depicted Wayne LaPierre, VP of the NRA as a terrorist.  

Blaming the 2nd Amendment or the NRA for what happened in San Bernadino, CA is irresponsible.  Those who carried out these attacks have absolutely zero respect for the 2nd Amendment, gun laws, or human life.  Does anyone believe that the guns they acquired were done so legally?  Are those pipe bombs (which fortunately did not detonate) protected under the 2nd Amendment?  Please tell me how the 2nd Amendment is responsible for what happened!  Nothing was going to deter these terrorists.  Absolutely nothing!  They are not fearful of death, and stricter laws were not going to deter them either!

I’ve also heard arguments that the framers never envisioned that our country would be what it is today and that the 2nd Amendment needs to be modified accordingly.   On the contrary.  The 2nd Amendment is in place precisely because the framers predicted that this is what our country could become. They were historians who studied the rise and fall of governments in great depth and were well aware of what would pose a threat to the Republic. And to throw the 2nd Amendment to the forefront and suggest it is the cause of Wednesday’s tragic events is politicizing it. To do so in the face of what happened this week is like a doctor prescribing the wrong medicine for the wrong disease.

(Side note:  I want to acknowledge Ulster County, NY Sheriff, Paul Van Blarcum.  He made national news yesterday when he suggested citizens who are legally allowed to carry guns, to do so responsibly.  Unfortunately, he is coming under attack for doing this.  I encourage you to offer your support by signing a petition here.)

War on Freedom of Religion

Where do I begin?  Why not start with the NY Daily News – again.  A day following the tragic events, this is their cover page:

kingprayer4n-7-web

While the country mourned, the GOP candidates (unlike their counterparts) offered up their condolences and prayers and the NY Daily News mocked them, calling them “cowards”.  In times like this, prayer and faith is what helps heal.  This is one among many attacks on religion in this country.  That is unless you’re Islamic or Muslim.  There is an unending river of Islamic apologists among the media and the left.  Even as we learn that this week’s events were driven by radical Islamists, the media does its best to sugarcoat what transpired.  ABC’s Brian Ross labeled the event as “workplace Jihad“.  What on earth does that mean?!   I’ll tell you what it means.  It means he is protective of the religion of Islam and would rather spin it as workplace violence instead of what it really is.

Less than a week prior, we saw a story labeling the Colorado shooter at the Planned Parenthood center as a “Christian Terrorist“.  There was no apparent shame in doing that and not a single person in the media batted an eye. There is a war on Christianity and Judaism in this country that is unprecedented.  Whether you like it or not, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.  Even our calendar is based on Christianity.  We are currently in the year 2015 A.D. and I wonder how many people even understand its meaning.   The entire world (yes, the entire world) follows this calendar.  A calendar that recognizes Christ.  Religious Freedom in this country is not a one-way street.  The double standards surrounding religion is un-American and it’s time we stand up for our beliefs and stop being bullied by those who preach tolerance, yet are nothing but intolerant.

War on Law Enforcement

I extend my sincerest gratitude to those law enforcement officers in California who acted selflessly, professionally, and heroically.  That is who they are.  That is what they do.  They represent and are a true reflection of the vast majority of law enforcement officers throughout this country.  Are there a few bad eggs in law enforcement?  Of course.  But that is not an excuse for the level of disrespect that we are seeing on a national scale.  Shamefully, as a result of this president’s assault on law enforcement, we now live in an environment where law enforcement are the enemy.  Obama has vilified law enforcement at every possible turn.  How often has he spoken favorably about law enforcement?

In recent weeks we were witness to the impacts of Obama’s maleficence.  In Chicago, a police officer was charged with murdering seventeen year old, Laquan McDonald.  protesterOne protester, Lamon Reccord, 16, repeatedly approached police, putting his face within inches of the men. He then dared them to “shoot me 16 times.”  Sadly, the media not only report this, they almost encourage it by painting law enforcement with the same broad brush that Obama uses.  In their world, one bad cop = all cops are bad.  Yet the rest of America is preached to, called names, and scolded for wanting the government to act more responsibly regarding Syrian refugees.  For wanting to keep Americans safe, we are told, “it’s wrong to paint Syrian refugees with a broad brush” and “they are not all terrorists”.  It’s time to end the war on law enforcement.  It’s time to give them the respect and gratitude they deserve.

This is Obama’s America.  An America at war with itself.

“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be one nation gone under.”
Ronald Reagan

 

Please follow and like us:
0