Disgusted

Logo1

Disgusted!

Here were are, just a couple of months away from the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.  rncNot long afterwards we will find ourselves in the midst of the general election.  For conservatives, the hour is dire and the consequences of losing the general election to either candidate of the democratic party may be too great for us to ever reverse course and restore the Republic.

Considering all that is at stake, to what have the republican electorate been subjected?  Tweets, tweets, more tweets, and tabloid BS!  I’ve had about all I can stand of this tweeting nonsense and the media’s incessant obsession with it!  We have one presidential candidate who is obviously addicted to being a nocturnal tweeter and has taken being “politically incorrect” to a whole new level.  Instead of hearing candidates addressing critical policies and issues, we are instead subjected to garbage!

trump1The leading candidate, Trump, couldn’t wait to get the field dwindled down to two or three candidates so he could talk about issues without having to deal with how “unfairly” he’s being treated.  Now that we have achieved that point in this primary, where is he?  He’s running away.   We finally have an opportunity to give the electorate what they deserve, a substantive debate.  But that doesn’t appear as though it’s going to happen.  And, quite frankly it’s not only sad, it’s disgusting!

Instead, “the Donald” finds it necessary to take this primary season even deeper into the proverbial gutter.  As a result, Ted Cruz has now had to resort to defending his family and saying things he wished need not be said.  To his credit, today Cruz has decided to take the high road (see below).

I ask you, are we deserving of all of this?  Is this what we wanted?  Hell no!  And, we have only one person to thank for this, Donald Trump.  Yes, that’s right!  So all of you Trump apologists can try and do what your candidate hasn’t been able to do, act respectfully.

It cannot be said that I am simply one of those “anti-Tump” movement types.  As a matter of fact, if you read some of my past posts, you will see that I was initially a supporter of Trump.  I defended him against those who I felt treated him unjustly, and against those who called him Hitlerian.  I gave him every benefit of the doubt and opened my mind up to what he had to say.  Unfortunately as time passed, Trump has become a political Don Rickles.    If he’s been consistent and clear on anything, it’s that he has never hesitated to lob insults at anyone who becomes a political threat to him.

First on Trump’s chopping block was Ben Carson.  Trump wasted little time comparing that man to a pedophile, and then ridiculed Carson’s attempt at stabbing a classmate when he was a troubled young man.  Also on Trump’s list was Rubio, who weeks prior to the Republican Primary in Florida, posed a legitimate threat to Trump.  Trump mocked Rubio’s height, referring to him as “Little Marco”.  And, candidates aren’t the only ones on the Donald Trump train of insults.  megynMegyn Kelly was an honored recipient as well.  Referring to a GQ photo shoot that Megyn Kelly once did, “the Donald” called her a “bimbo”.  (In hindsight, an interesting choice of words considering that Trump’s wife Melania also did a photo shoot as a model which was considerably more revealing and less tasteful.)

But then there’s Ted Cruz, the one candidate who has a legitimate chance of dethroning Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination.  The single candidate who is a clear Constitutional Conservative.  To Trump’s credit, he must have realized early on that Cruz was a viable candidate.  He wasted no time in labeling Cruz, “Lying Ted”.   A little over a week ago, Trump marched into Utah prior to the Utah caucus, his guns loaded with Cruz insults referring to him as “Lying Ted”.  He stood in front of the people of Utah and addressed them, proclaiming that “Utah doesn’t like liars”.  Well, let’s just say he was right about that.  Cruz earned almost 70% of the vote in Utah, with Trump finishing last, behind Kasich with only 14%.

cruz-presidentCalling Cruz, “Lying Ted” is one thing.  But Trump pushed the envelope too far last week when his insults took on a personal tone, attacking Heidi Cruz (wife of Ted Cruz).  His intentions were clear.  His tweet insulted Heidi Cruz’ physical appearance and then blamed his tweet on Cruz, stating it was a reaction to a campaign ad for which Cruz was responsible.  There’s only one problem with Trump’s excuse, Cruz’ campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the ad and Trump knows it!

If this goes to the republican convention without any republican candidate receiving the necessary 1237 delegates, things may just get even more ugly.  We don’t need a crystal ball to predict how things may go.  Should Trump not receive the 1237 delegates, he won’t become the nominee on the first ballot in Cleveland.  He’s already attempted to politicize this, telling the public that should he end up with most (not majority) of delegates, that he is owed the nomination.  He is attempting to get the people behind him to develop enough outcry to have the rules of the convention altered in his favor.  Well, I’m sorry Donald, but that’s not how it works.  You see, you need a majority of the delegates, not the most delegates to win the nomination.   Trump has received a little more than 35% of the popular vote during this primary.  That means that approximately 65% (a majority) voted against him.

I know…the same can be said for Ted Cruz.  And, you would be correct in saying that.  Cruz, will also not have a majority of the delegates, which is why we are likely to see an open convention.  And should that happen, the insults will continue to fly and chaos may ensue.

So here we stand.  This is how it’s apparently going to be.  We conservatives are not going to have the opportunity to see the primary play out with any integrity.   The media sensationalize all of this nonsense and they feed on it like hungry sharks playing right into “the Donald’s” hands.  The republican primary has become one big joke!  Hillary-Bernie-handshakeYou can almost see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders laughing it up and dancing the Foxtrot together.  We are at a critical time in the history of this country, and this is what the republican primary process has given us.  It’s embarrassing and I for one, am disgusted!

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Free Market Economy

Logo1

Natural Laws

One of the most dangerous and fruitless efforts made by man is to attempt to alter the natural order of things.  These things can include the economy, social norms, morality, and even nature.  Venezuela is a textbook case of a country in collapse, which was the direct result of a government’s attempt to alter the course of natural events.  How did they do this you ask?  One word:  Socialism.

venezuelaIn a Washington Post article from over a year ago (found here),  they address some of the failed policies of the Venezuelan government.   If you read this article, as an American it should be somewhat frightening to you.  Below are a few excerpts which support my statement:

  • “(Venezuela) doesn’t have an economy, so much as a poorly run oil exporting business that isn’t enough to subsidize everything else.”
  • “(Venezuela thinks) it can print as much money as it wants without stoking inflation by just saying it won’t.”
  • “The trouble is that while it has tried to help the poor, which is commendable, it has also spent much more than it can afford, which is not. Indeed, Venezuela’s government is running a 14 percent of gross domestic product deficit right now, a fiscal hole so big that there’s only one way to fill it: the printing press”

Is any of this starting to sound familiar?  So here we are.  In the good ol’ US of A.  The “Teflon” country.  We are resilient, right?  None of this could ever happen here, right?  Our economy is doing well under Obama, right?  Wrong!

Here is an image of the US Deficit as a percentage of GDP:defecit

Folks, we aren’t that far off from where Venezuela is!  And we are printing Cassidy-Bernie-Sanders-Loud-and-Clear-1200money, increasing our debt, and no one has made any effort to decrease federal spending.  To make matters worse, we have a presidential candidate in Bernie Sanders, who is an unapologetic socialist!  Hillary Clinton is just an “in-the-closet” socialist, who is close enough to Sanders to “feel the Bern” of socialism.  What happened in Venezuela is not a coincidence.  And, if we think it can’t happen here, we are dead wrong!

The free market economy is the remedy to our own pending economic collapse.  The free market economy is guided by “spontaneous order“, a natural law, if you will.  Government is an obstruction to this order.  It cannot dictate this order.  It cannot subsidize industries and still maintain this order.  It cannot pick and choose winners in the economy and maintain this order. It cannot enforce egalitarian policies and maintain this order.  It cannot impose socialist policies and maintain this order.  It cannot print money to influence the economy and maintain this order.  It cannot raise minimum wages and maintain this order.  Government can do nothing to effectively improve on this.  Government can only detract from it.  economy

People and the free market make up the natural order of things.  Not the government.  It is neither possible, nor responsible to impose policies to improve on this.  No good can come from that.  There is a reason this country has historically been the greatest nation on earth.  There is a reason people from impoverished, socialist economies desire to leave these places and come to America.  Our free market system provides hope and opportunity unlike anything they have ever seen before.

We cannot allow for our political leaders to get in the way of what is the greatest bastion of opportunity and prosperity.  For when we do, we will lose it all.  The law of nature always wins!

Please follow and like us:
0

Civil Disobedience

Logo1

Civil Disobedience

“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.” – The Bill of Rights, Amendment I

Peaceably assemble…that is a very important part of the First Amendment.  There has been a lot of discussion lately following the violence that took place at a planned rally for Donald Trump in Chicago last week.  Regardless of your opinion of Donald Trump, the law provides guidance on how to decipher what happened.

As you can see above, the First Amendment provides the right to free speech.   As written in the Bill of Rights, Congress can not make law restricting free speech.  Therefore there is no law to prevent Trump from holding this rally and speaking freely.   Whether you agree or disagree with him, he has that right.

The problem with all of this is not whether or not Trump has this right.  The problem is those who have taken liberty with the First Amendment to believe it is their right to forcefully stop Trump from speaking.  That is not a right provided in the First Amendment.  Instead, it’s another in the long line of examples where the left who preach tolerance, do not exercise tolerance.  ben shapiroWhether it’s Trump in Chicago or Ben Shapiro in LA, the left demonstrates intolerance and a true disregard for free speech.  In their world, everything is to be tolerated, unless you are right-wing and conservative.

Somewhere along the way, the left (with support from the media) have redefined “civil disobedience” as the “right to free speech”.   Civil disobedience occurs when protesters do not assemble “peaceably” as described in the First Amendment.  Free speech is not civil disobedience. We have recently been witness to ways in which the left and the media have equated civil disobedience with free speech.   We witnessed it when we saw acts of violence in Baltimore, Md. and Ferguson, Mo..

The media and the left unilaterally decided that the First Amendment protected these heinous acts.  How did they do this you ask?  The leftist White House and leftist local government officials in Baltimore irresponsibly told us so.  If you don’t recall, listen for yourself to the mayor of Baltimore below who was in continuous consultation with Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to Obama:

And, what about the media’s role in this?  Let’s just say that silence speaks volumes.  Very few news agencies, reporters, nor the cronies they call expert guests, took a stand and decried these acts.   Those who did, were immediately labeled as racist.  We watched businesses burn and people lose their life savings during the events  in Ferguson, Mo. because of civil disobedience.

Again, civil disobedience and free speech are not one in the same.  Any provocation through civil disobedience has now become accepted and we are expected to be tolerant of it.   That my friends is Bovine Excrement!  Once we start tolerating it, we have lost the civil society.  We can not allow the left and the media to redefine the Bill of Rights.  reaganRonald Reagan knew the difference and refused to let others redefine it. Not only do we lack that kind of leadership today, we are subject to a president who is the polar opposite.

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Federal Elections

Logo1

Federal Elections

Assume for the moment that you are a homeowner in a sub-division where you reside, and the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) is about to hold their annual meeting, including the elections of homeowner-clipart-hoa-lettersHOA officers.  All of the homeowners are asked to sign in and provide identification as homeowners prior to the start of the meeting.  As the meeting gets underway and election ballots are handed out, fifteen strangers walk in on the meeting, fail to sign in, and request ballots for the election of officers.  None of the homeowners in attendance, including yourself, recognize any of the fifteen individuals.  As a homeowner, which of the following would you suggest?

a.  Assume they are homeowners and provide them with ballots 

b.  Out of fear of discriminating against them, give them ballots (no questions asked)

c.   Require them to provide identification and proof of HOA membership before giving them ballots

The answer to this question seems pretty straight forward doesn’t it?  The only reasonable answer is “c”.  I can’t imagine any homeowner granting a potential outsider the ability to cast a ballot if they are not an HOA member.  It is not only wise, but an example of due diligence to require proof of ownership before allowing them access to the meeting and election process.

Take another example.  (This is for my friends in academia, many of whom are surprisingly liberal…not.)  Imagine you are a member of the faculty in the College of Engineering and you are attending the annual faculty meeting of the college where such things as committee appointments and other policy decisions are up for a vote.  All of a sudden, faculty from the College of Business enter and sit in academicon the meeting.  Having attended many of these types of meetings over the years, I can assure you that heads will turn faster than a yellow traffic lights turns red when you’re approaching an intersection.  Faculty in the College of Engineering will be falling all over themselves in attempt to throw the infidels (College of Business faculty) out on their butts!  And quite honestly, I wouldn’t blame them.  Would you?  Again, it’s the reasonable thing to do in that situation.  Why?  Because whether it’s a faculty meeting or an HOA meeting, it’s imperative to protect the integrity of the proceedings!

Unfortunately, for matters of even greater importance to society, we are told that due diligence means otherwise.  We are also told that the right thing to do is quite the opposite of what we just proved to be the reasonable thing to do.

Under current law in the United States, non-citizens are NOT allowed to vote in federal elections. When applicants complete a federal voter registration form in brian_newbythe states of Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia, the executive director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Brian Newby, told elections officials in these three states that they could require proof of US citizenship.  No big deal, right?  Wrong!

Apparently a coalition of activists filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia this past week requesting a restraining order blocking the requirement for proof of citizenship.  One has to wonder why?  It’s certainly not to protect the integrity of the election process.  It couldn’t be.


To make matters worse (and to no great surprise), this administration’s Department of Justice headed by Loretta Lynch consented to the injunction filed against the EAC (one of the administration’s own federal agencies)!  gavelThis is just another example of this feckless administration’s selectivity when it comes to enforcing federal law.  Again, it goes against reason to not enforce proof of eligibility in ANY form of election!  And if you believe in taking a lawful and reasonable approach, you are going to be labeled as “extreme”.

I know it is not going to bother the leftists, but if you believe in American sovereignty, you can not be in favor of this type of tyrannical behavior.  It is utterly unjust and regardless of your political affiliation, you should stand up to this.  Since when is following the law and being reasonable extreme?  This nonsense has to stop and it has to stop now!

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Ends Do Not Justify the Means

Logo1

Ends Do Not Justify the Means

Most Americans realize there are many issues facing this country.  They include economic issues, social issues, foreign policy issues, healthcare issues, and everything in between.  I don’t believe it’s far fetched to think that many Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, would find commonality on what these issues are.  Where Americans differ, is on what the underlying problems are surrounding these issues.  As such, there will be great differences on how to address them.

Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portraitIn light of the recent passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, I think it’s important to make the case to the American people as to why this is important.  In one of his most famous quotes, Scalia said,

The Constitution is “not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.”  Scalia added, “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.”

Scalia was issuing a warning to Americans, explaining the ills of activist judges.  To issue judgement on cases based on personal or political ideology is a dangerous endeavor.  The Constitution is “dead”.  This means no one individual nor government branch, can interpret or insert something into that document that is not there.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Scalia has been labeled as an “originalist”.  The majority of Constitutional Conservatives in this country would tend to agree with Scalia’s interpretation of The Constitution.  A famed Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork said the following:

bork-obituary-ann-coulter-620x348
“If the Constitution is law, then presumably its meaning, like that of all other law,
is the meaning the lawmakers were understood to have intended.  If the Constitution is law, then presumably, like all other law, the meaning the lawmakers intended is as binding upon judges as it is upon legislatures and executives.  There is no other sense in which the Constitution can be what article VI proclaims it to be: “Law….” This means, of course, that a judge, no matter on what court he sits, may never create new constitutional rights or destroy old ones.  Any time he does so, he violates not only the limits to his own authority but, and for that reason, also violates the rights of the legislature and the people….the philosophy of original understanding is thus a necessary inference from the structure of government apparent on the face of the Constitution.”

The concern of Constitutional Conservatives everywhere is that Obama will nominate an activist as a replacement to the Supreme Court.  An activist judge could do irreparable damage to this country.  With cases such as Obamacare, immigration, and abortion set to make it to the Supreme Court, conservatives are rightfully concerned.

As Americans, we expect the justices of the Supreme Court to make decisions based on law, not politics or ideologies.  Considered an originalist, Justice Scalia based his decision on the original intent of the law.  Again, when he stated that the Constitution is “not a living document”, he was arguing against judicial activism.

The Heritage Foundation defines judicial activism this way:Heritage

Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning. As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law.

Whether it be justices of the Supreme Court or politicians, the law matters.  The Constitution is the foundation on which this country was built.  One can not simply justify an action or an interpretation of law based on desired outcomes!  Having a “pen and a phone” is not a justifiable approach to achieving an ideological outcome.  Nor is it justifiable for the Supreme Court to hear cases that should be decided by the states just so they can achieve a result they desire.  Doing so undermines our Constitutional Republic.

In the opening paragraph of this article, I asserted that Americans may find common ground on the types of issues that plague this country.  Differences arise among Americans in terms of how to address these issues.  At this pivotal time in our nation’s history, it is imperative that we have a Supreme Court that honors our Constitution, not as a living document, but as a rock on which our country is guided.  Regardless of any ideology, the rule of law matters.  The ends do not justify the means.

Please follow and like us:
0

How Do You Know It’s Broke if You Don’t Follow the Laws?

Logo1

How Do You Know It’s Broke if You Don’t Follow the Laws?

I got to thinking recently about the rhetoric that is constantly thrown about regarding immigration in this country.  We hear pundits, politicians, and other media mouthpieces go on and on about “immigration reform”.   They say things like, “The system is broken” or “we are a country of immigrants”.

I take exception to much of this rhetoric.  The political correctness crowd has made it difficult for some to speak the truth, especially politicians.  Many of these politicians, particularly those on the republican side, become so fearful of media backlash that they flounder on the issue of immigration.  If you look at record for many of these candidates, they’ve never taken a hard stand one way or the other.  rubioWe are all aware of Rubio’s flipping on this issue.  He ran for the US Senate in the State of Florida by taking a conservative approach to immigration, but almost immediately did a “180” when he arrived on Capitol Hill.

During the 2012 Presidential election, Donald Trump was criticizing Mitt Romney for being too tough on immigration.  In this election cycle, we don’t know what Trump stands for.  The only thing we can say for certain, is that he’s going to build a wall.  He’s told us this thousands of times.  Yet, he flip-flops on how to handle illegal immigration.

bw-trump.finger-1024x699He gives the impression that he will take a tough stand on the issue only to suggest that after deporting illegal immigrants, they will be invited back legally.  This practice is more commonly referred to as “touchback”.  Many of Trump’s critics have labeled this practice as a form of Amnesty.

Ted Cruz has been the only candidate who has been consistent on immigration.  He has taken a constitutional, conservative approach to illegal immigration from the very beginning.  And by “the very beginning”, I’m referring to his run for the US Senate seat in Texas.  Marco Rubio has erroneously accused Cruz of flipping on immigration.  The video below is evidence that Cruz has remained consistent on this issue.

Despite what you hear, we are not a nation of “immigrants”.  We are a nation of “citizens”.  Our citizens are made up of those natural born and those immigrants who were naturalized (followed a legal process towards citizenship).  Citizens who were naturalized, were once immigrants who later assimilated.  The United States is not a nation obligated to allowing immigrants into this country who want to impose their culture and laws on others within the United States.   Immigrants MUST assimilate and abide by the laws of this country.

The media and left-wing activists will also label conservatives as “haters”, “heartless”, “zealots”, and “racist” for opposing Amnesty.  Don’t believe any of that.  Conservatives believe in immigration.  Legal forms of immigration!  Conservatives believe in assimilation and that following the rule of law in the United States is essential to assimilation.  And herein lies the problem…our government has decided not to follow the law.

parenting (1)Parenting can teach us a lot about a common sense approach to issues.  It is one thing for a parent to define rules for their children.  It is another thing to enforce those rules.  Parents who fail to enforce rules early on will find it difficult to enforce rules later in life.  Their children will lose respect for them.

In this country, we have rules for immigration.  They’re called laws.  If we don’t enforce them, how can anyone be expected to follow them?  Do we need complete immigration reform?  Is the system broke?  How do you know it’s broke if you don’t follow the laws?  There is no respect for the current laws if they’re not being enforced. Before this country invests in immigration reform, our government needs to be effective in enforcing current law.  That is the conservative position.  And it doesn’t make you a “hater”, “heartless”, a “zealot”, nor “racist”.

Please follow and like us:
0

NY Values

Logo1

New York Values

Having grown up in New York, I think I am qualified to comment on what has recently become a somewhat controversial issue.  Earlier this week, in reference to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz said the following:  “Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values.”  Without question, this was going to be a topic of discussion in last night’s Republican Presidential debate in Charleston. debate Cruz is a very intelligent debater and knew he would need to be prepared to defend his words.  In an exchange with Trump during last evening’s debate, Cruz responded by saying, “Everybody understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal and pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and focus on money and the media.”  You know what?  He’s absolutely correct and the truth hurts.   However, anyone who doubted Trump’s ability as a debater were proven wrong. Trump successfully turned the tables on Cruz by altering the context of Cruz’s statement and diverting attention to September 11th.  He closed this exchange by calling Cruz’s comment “insulting“.

But once again, Cruz was correct.  New York State and the City of New York embrace and epitomize the liberal philosophy.  In January 2014, NY Governor, Andrew Cuomo had plenty to say about conservatives in NY.  cuomo5He stated,  “Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves.”  He also went on to share his thoughts on how he would welcome conservatives in the State of New York:  “Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”  

In essence, Cuomo was telling us what he believes to be NY values.  Based on his statements, NY values include being anti-gun and pro-abortion.  When Ted Cruz made his initial comment regarding Donald Trump, at the very least he was referring to a 1999 television interview with Trump, where Trump proclaimed that he was “very pro-choice“.  I don’t see anything wrong with what Cruz said, nor do I find any of it insulting to New Yorkers.

New York has some of the highest taxes, some of the strictest regulations, and some of the most ridiculous attempts at banning anything and everything than anyone else in the country.   A few years ago, then NYC Mayor Michael bloombergBloomberg attempted to place a ban on the sale of “sugary drinks” that were greater than 16 ounces in size.  Besides this NY value being an example of government trampling on liberty, it also defies logic as there was no proposed ban on refills on so-called “sugary drinks”.   So you could not order a size larger than 16 ounces, but you could have as many of them as you wanted.  Thankfully there are still a few judges left who are not ideologues and the ban was struck down.

In 2015, another ban went into effect in NYC .  This ban was imposed on food containers which were made with expanded polystyrene.  In short, this ban refers to styrofoam and some other plastic food containers.  A NY Supreme Court Justice also struck down this law, citing, “the city’s (NYC) Department of Sanitation’s order to ban the items was arbitrary, capricious and irrational.”

Under Mayor Bloomberg, he enacted many bans which include such things as banning black roofs, cabs could not be a Nissan model NV200s, and commercial music could not be over 45 decibels.  A complete list can be found here.  Strict regulations in NY are a threat to a free market enterprise and individual liberty.  These are anything but conservative values.

Bans are one thing, but I also referenced another NY value, high taxes.  Do you remember Eric Garner?  In the summer of 2014, Eric Garner was a black man who died at the hands of white NYPD officer during a take down in what some described as a choke hold.  The tragic death of Eric Garner is best known as a racially charged incident between law enforcement and a presumably innocent black individual.  But what the media never addressed was what led to this incident.

Eric_Garner_facebookGarner was suspected of illegally selling “loosies”, which are individual cigarettes that come from packs which do not have tax stamps on them.  Reportedly, a convenience store owner called the NYPD to inform them that Garner was outside his business engaging in the illegal sale of “loosies”.   Store owners can’t compete with the black market sale of cigarettes because of the incredibly high taxes they must collect for both NY State and the City of NY.  So it’s understandable why a store owner would not want someone outside their place of business selling “loosies”.

Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions, I’m not suggesting high taxes caused Garner’s death.  But I can tell you that if taxes weren’t so ridiculously high, there wouldn’t be such a thing as a “loosie”.  According to NY State’s official Department of Taxation and Finance website, “New York State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes at the rate of $4.35 per package of twenty cigarettes. New York City imposes a local excise tax at the rate of $1.50 per package of twenty cigarettes, bringing the combined tax rate in New York City to $5.85.”  The taxes alone in NYC are higher than the cost of a pack of cigarettes in many states.  With taxes, a single pack of cigarettes in NYC can cost anywhere from $12/pack and up.  According to http://www.gumauctions.com/average-price-of-cigarettes/0/National-Average/ the national average price for a pack of cigarettes is $5.95, just $0.10 higher than the taxes alone that are imposed in NY.  Take a look at the image below just to see how NY compares to the rest of the nation.  cigarettes

Dear New Yorkers,

Do not buy into the narrative that you should be insulted by Ted Cruz.  These are the values Ted Cruz was referring to.  What is insulting is not what Cruz said, but rather how your state government and city governments are treating you.

Please follow and like us:
0

Hollywood Hypocrites

Logo1

Hollywood Hypocrites

Perhaps you’ve recently seen the story surrounding a list of celebrities who signed their names to a card sent to Emperor President Obama, thanking him for his action on increased gun controls.  If you haven’t, you can find the story here.

As is the case with most left-wing activists, these celebrities somehow overlook the hypocrisy of their actions.  Let’s take a moment to point out a few of these beloved celebrities who added their signatures to this card.

Judd Apatow, Actor, Screenwriter, Director, Producer

apatowJudd Apatow was the producer for the 2008 film, Pineapple Express.  This film’s plot centers around a marijuana dealer and a corrupt police officer.  Immediately, I am thinking there might be a gun battle or two in this film.  According to IMDb.com, one of the violent scenes is described in the following manner: “A man is shot in the head, falls against a window, and blood and brain matter splashes on the window.”  Sounds like a good wholesome flick with that doesn’t promote gun violence to me.  Verdict: HYPOCRITE!

Olivia Wilde, Actress

wildeThis actress starred in the role Liza in the 2012 film, Deadfall.  In this film, Liza and her brother Addison (played by Eric Bana) were victims of an abusive family environment.  Because of this, Addison became very protective of his sister, even shooting their father to protect her from continued abuse.  Addison eventually became quite the killer.  However, when Addison threatens to kill her boyfriend she takes matters into her own hands and shoots her brother.  Verdict: HYPOCRITE!

Edward Norton, Actor

Though Edward Norton doesn’t play the star role in the 2012 film, The Bourne Legacy, this film is not lacking in its share of gun violence.  Take a look at one of the official trailers and see for yourself how it glamorizes gun violence.  Verdict: HYPOCRITE!

Michael Keaton, Actor

penthouseIn 2013, Michael Keaton takes to his firearms as a villain named Hollander in the film, Penthouse North.  In this film, Hollander and Chad (Barry Sloane) hold a blind photojournalist captive in her home as they search for diamonds they suspect are hidden in her home by her now dead boyfriend.  IMDb.co describes one of the scenes this way:  “A man is shot repeatedly and then thrown from a building. We see him hit the ground with a sickening thwack. We later see his body on the ground. His leg broken and twisted at an awkward angle and a puddle of blood under his head.”  And oh by the way,  for the animal lovers out there, Hollander also tosses a cat over the balcony to the ground below.  Verdict: HYPOCRITE!

Saving the best signee for last:

Liam Neeson, Actor

neesonThough there are several others who added their signature to the thank you card sent to Obama, this guy tops the list.  It’s difficult to recall a Liam Neeson film in which he is not a gun toting, gun shooting, bad ass m-f’er!  The list is long, including his popular “Taken” series.  Neeson plays a character, Bryan Mills who is a retired CIA agent.  In the inaugural film, his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace) is abducted while traveling to Paris.

When it comes to Hollywood, one can count on an increase in violence from one sequel to the next.  After all, they have to outdo themselves to be able to sell the sequel(s) to their audience.  At last count, I believe there have been four films in the Taken series.  Below is a trailer from Taken 2.  Verdict: QUADRUPLE HYPOCRITE!

Golden Globe Awards

In addition to the above mentioned celebrities, this past Sunday evening we were witness to another celebrity spectacle, the Golden Globe Awards.  A wonderful piece was posted to Twitchy.com which shed more light on the hypocrisy in Hollywood which you can find here.

If there is an ounce of sincerity in the hearts of any of these celebrities, let them put their money where their mouths are.  Until then, get off your soapboxes and shut up!

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Town Hall Rhetoric

Logo1

Town Hall Rhetoric

Tonight’s “Town Hall Meeting” was just another in the long line of left-wing gimmicky efforts in which CNN allowed Obama an opportunity to avoid legitimate concerns, and instead take an opportunity to spew more falsehoods and more rhetoric.

I have but a few short observations that I want to convey to everyone.  First up was Taya Kyle, widow of Navy Seal, Chris Kyle.   She respectfully discussed the kyledifferences between law abiding citizens and lawbreakers.  Her point was clear.  Those who break the law have no intention of following any laws, new or old.  She also made an effort to draw a correlation between declining murder rates and increase in law abiding gun carriers.

Obama took the football she handed off to him and ran around the bases thinking he was going to hit a home run.  He continued to try to sell his position on more gun laws, but could not explain how it would stop criminals from breaking these new laws.  You can see the exchange below where he dances around the issue.

Obama starts stammering about three minutes into this video when he tries to turn the tables on Taya Kyle.  He falsely claims that cities with the strictest gun laws are seeing decreases in violent crime rates while cities with higher legal gun ownership aren’t seeing the same declines.

Chicago, along with New York City and Los Angeles have some of the strictest gun laws in the US.  Most cities follow state law when it comes to gun control, however some cities, such as those listed above, impose additional restrictions.

The table below details the rate of increase in murder through August 2015 for some major US cities. murder ratesOf the cities listed, all but New Orleans and Dallas are in states whose gun laws fall among the strictest top 50%.  According to the blog Hey Jackass!, which tracks crime and murder in Chicago, Chicago goes a little more than 20 hours on average in between murders, and 84.6% of those murdered were murdered by gunshots.  Given this information, Obama’s claim doesn’t appear to hold water.

Rape survivor, Kimberly Corban also took the microphone to address Obama. That exchange can be seen here.   She discussed the importance of being able to protect herself and her family.   Obama again falls back on his rhetoric by saying, “You certainly would like to make it a little harder for that assailant to have also had a gun”.   (Assumed reference to her rapist.)  He continued, “You certainly want to make sure that if he gets released, that he can’t now do what he did to you, to somebody else.  And it’s going to be easier for us to prevent him from getting a gun if there’s a strong background system in place.”

I guess he just doesn’t get it.  A criminal isn’t going to go through the detailed, legal process to buy a firearm.  A dangerous criminal who has been released (something Obama is guilty of doing ) knows he/she is not going to pass a background check.  So why would they even try to purchase a firearm legally?  obamadunce

Later in the exchange, Obama takes a left turn and starts questioning whether or not having guns at home is safe.  His true colors start to bleed through at this point.  He goes on to say, “If you look at the statistics there’s no doubt there are times when someone who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves…but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but (pause), they’re(?) end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.   And that’s something that can be debated.”

Debated?!  Please, someone find these statistics that he is talking about!  I don’t EVER recall hearing a story where a legal gun owner had their own weapon turned on them during a crime. This is an outrageous claim!

Unfortunately, the media will praise him for attending this “Town Hall Meeting”.  No one will question the legitimacy of any of his statements.  If he says it, it must be true.  What a shame!

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Obama’s Hypocrisy

Logo1

Obama’s Gun Grab Hypocrisy

“And from(for?) every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.”  This was the sentence that started what some are calling “crocodile tears” from Obama in yesterday’s announcement.  He then went on to politicize the shooting in Newtown, Ct. saying, “Every time I think about those kids, it makes me mad.”

US Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama sheds tears while talking about his grandmother Madelyn Dunham who raised him and passed away this morning, during a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, November 03, 2008. AFP PHOTO/Emmanuel Dunand (Photo credit should read EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images)

Obama will continue to promote increased restrictions on guns saying, “We know we can’t stop every act of violence.  Every act of evil in the world.  But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.”  What Obama chooses to overlook is how his policies have had a hand in the deaths of many men, women, and children in this country.  However,  he and the media will turn a blind eye to all of this.  Though the examples are many, let’s take a moment to point out a few of Obama’s policies that have and may continue to have an impact on the safety of Americans.

Fast and Furious39730_article_fullTwo men, Ivan Soto-Barraza and Jesus Sanchez-Meza, were found guilty of murdering U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry with guns supplied by the U.S. government in a failed attempt to track weapons to Mexican druglords.

Sanctuary Cities

Thirty-two year old Kathryn “Kate” Steinle was shot in the back by an illegal immigrant on July 1, 2015 as she was walking with her father along San Francisco’s scenic Embarcadero waterfront.  Some have called this a “breakdown of the system”, as an immigrant with an extensive criminal record was set free to roam San Francisco, a city identified by the Obama administration as a sanctuary city.

Bowe Bergdahl/Guantanamo Prisoner ExchangeBowe_Bergdahl_2792424bIn May 2014, President Obama’s administration brokered an exchange of 5 Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who recently entered no plea at a hearing before his court-martial scheduled for later this month.  In return for Bergdahl, Obama released 5 top Al Qaeda prisoners, who have reportedly sought out to renew their terrorist activities.

Unconstitutional Immigration Policies

If Obama were truly interested in saving lives, he ought to reconsider his policies on immigration.  He shed tears at the thought of lives being lost during yesterday’s speech, but not a single tear was shed for those lives lost in America due to his conscious effort not to enforce existing immigration law.  A long list of of crimes committed by illegal aliens can be found here.  But a few of those listed below demonstrate just how heinous some of these crimes were:

  • December 2015 — A 40-year-old illegal alien, Michael Rodriguez Garcia, was sentenced to four life terms for the rape and sodomy of two children in Alabama. (Breitbart News, December 19, 2015)
  • June 2015A Salvadoran, Mauricio Hernandez, convicted of rape and murder of the baby born to his victim was sentenced to 50 years in prison in Texas and faces deportation when he has served his sentence. (The Dallas Morning News, June 5, 2015)

Before Obama’s followers and the media get all worked up over his tears, they should be putting his feet to the fire.  He should be forced to answer the following questions:

  1. If you are so moved by “every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun”, why aren’t you equally moved by every family who have lost a loved one at the hands of an illegal alien?
  2. Weren’t you moved enough by the loss of Kate Steinle to speak out against Harry Reid when he blocked a vote on “Kate’s Law“?
  3. Why have you run away from the Fast and Furious scandal?
  4. All federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are already required to request a background check for every gun sale, which is performed by the FBI (another federal agency). Why do your executive actions target law abiding citizens when it is agencies of the federal government who are responsible for approval of all gun sales by FFLs?

I would like to think his tears were a show of real emotion.  Unfortunately you can count me among those who question his sincerity and instead believe his tears were just a plain “show”.

Please follow and like us:
0