Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Obama Says U.S. Intelligence Underestimated ISIS

In a move that's extremely unusual for him, President Obama blamed U.S. intelligence for his failure to act sooner in dealing with the ISIS problem. The President, always one to step up to the plate and take full responsibility for things that go wrong during his time in office, on this occasion took a different route and told the American people it wasn't his fault this time....

OK. Now that you've all had your laugh for the day let's get back to reality. It is true that President Obama threw the U.S. intelligence community under the bus on Saturday, saying underestimated ISIS' capabilities and the speed with which they were able to recruit and expand their numbers, as well as their fierceness and fighting abilities.

The President went one step further in blaming the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, for the "oversight."

Except that what the President said wasn't true. Up to date intelligence on ISIS has been included in the President's daily security briefing since the beginning of the year. Part of the problem is that Obama declared ISIS a "JV team" (Junior Varsity) back in January and decided he didn't really need to worry about them. Part of the problem is that according to the Government Accountability Institute, Obama's schedules show he has only attended 42.1% of his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB) since being re-elected. Of course, the White House denies these numbers but since the President also receives the PDBs via his iPad it's impossible for either side to prove what he did and did not receive. It's not the first time President Obama has been accused of not attending his daily briefings. The same topic surfaced immediately following the Benghazi attacks.

The intelligence community isn't sitting quietly and allowing the President to slander them, however. Sources who remain unnamed (for obvious reasons) are now saying Obama has been provided intelligence information about the terrorist group that has now become ISIS since 2012.

The fact is President Obama failed to act on over a year's worth of intelligence and now wants to blame the people who gave him the information that he failed to utilize. Obama is doing what he is best at - blaming others for his failures.

At least this time it's his own administration and not Bush. Maybe there is hope after all.

Nah....


Monday, September 29, 2014

It's Just Not Fair...!

I'm actually surprised I haven't heard it or read it somewhere. There has to be some liberal anti-gun nut out there who will criticize Mark Vaughan, the Chief Operating Officer of Vaughn Foods in Moore, Oklahoma, for shooting Alton Nolan as he was repeatedly stabbing his second victim after stabbing and beheading his first victim on Thursday.

Vaughn, who is also a reserve deputy sheriff, was carrying his weapon that morning and shot Nolan, saving the life of the second victim and possibly more.

So where are the anti-gun zealots screaming about how unfair it is that Nolan was shot? You remember them - I'm sure they were in the crowd that was screaming about how unfair it was that Israel not only had an iron dome missile protection system but their rockets and bombs were more powerful than those of Hamas and were killing more people. Their misguided logic makes them believe that in a situation of war or protection of life each participant needs to be equally armed.

Many of these people are also involved in criticizing police for using tactical equipment to deal with disruptive mobs, such as in Ferguson, Missouri, instead of sticking to the old standby of riot batons and helmets. I actually heard that said - that police should stop using tactical gear and face off rioters with only batons and helmet to make it more fair. What is supposed to happen - the cops win sometimes and the rioters win other times? Really?

I'm surprised no race baiter like Sharpton, Jackson or Melissa Harris-Perry has accused Mr. Vaughn of using excessive force. Sharpton defended the rioting in Ferguson, after all. During a rally following the Michael Brown shooting, and following a few days of rioting and looting, Sharpton told a crowd in Ferguson "Don't loot in Michael's name. We are not looters. We are liberators. We are not burners. We are builders." Apparently not everyone agreed with him because mostly what they were liberating was merchandise from area stores.

Texas governor Rick Perry believes President Obama should make a statement about the incident in Moore because many people believe, given the perpetrator's recent conversion to Islam and his radical Facebook posts, that this was an act of terrorism. But since the President and Eric Holder declared Nadal Hasan to have committed merely an act of workplace violence, I doubt we'll see Alton Nolan be declared a terrorist. Just another random workplace beheading. Move along. Nothing to see here.


No Reason For Profiling?

It seems one of the last things Eric Holder wants to do as Attorney General is further tie the hands of federal counter terrorism officials. Holder is pushing to expand the definition of racial profiling to include religious beliefs, a move that will hinder federal authorities as they investigate radical Islamic terrorists.

Under Obama and Holder the FBI has had to remove all references to jihad and Islam from their counter terrorism training. According to Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of several books on the subject, the Obama administration has “systematically removed any mention of Islam and jihad from counter terror training manuals for the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies.”

One can only ask "Why would you do that?" Is it because, as President Obama says, the terrorists are "not Islamic"? Or is it because in his zeal to protect and defend Islam the President wants to pretend that Islam and jihad plays no role in worldwide terrorism operations? I wonder - does he believe the 9/11 attacks were committed by people who were "not Islamic"?

The President's refusal to call it Islamic terrorism seems subversive to me.

I can give you 45 reasons why there is a need for profiling Islamic terrorists in this country and around the world. The following is a list of criminal acts committed by Muslims here in the United States in the last 13 years, beginning on 9/11/2001. It's a little long but it demonstrates the need for continued counter terrorism measures with emphasis on Islam and jihad. The common denominator in each one of these is the perpetrator(s) being Muslims. The enemy is real even if President Obama's approach to the problem is not. 


9/11/2001 - Washington, DC - Nearly 200 people are killed when Islamic hijackers steer a plane full of people into the Pentagon.
9/11/2001 - Shanksville, PA - Forty passengers are killed after Islamic radicals hijack the plane in an attempt to steer it into the U.S. Capitol building.
9/11/2001 New York, NY - Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center, killing hundreds on impact and eventually killing thousands when the towers collapsed. At least 200 are seriously injured.
3/19/2002 – Tuscon, AZ - A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.
5/27/2002 – Denton, TX - Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.
7/4/2002 – Los Angeles, CA - Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.
9/5/2002 - Clinton, MD -A 55-year-old pizzaria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.
9/21/2002 - Montgomery, AL - Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.
9/23/2002 - Baton Rouge, LA - A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.
10/2/2002 - Wheaton, MD - Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.
10/3/2002 - Montgomery County, MD - Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.
10/9/2002 - Manassas, VA - A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.
10/11/2002 - Fredericksburg, VA - Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.
10/14/2002 - Arlington, VA - A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.
10/22/2002 - Aspen Hill, MD - A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.
8/6/2003 - Houston, TX - After undergoing a 'religious revival', a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.
12/2/2003 - Chicago, IL - A Muslim doctor deliberately allows a Jewish patient to die from an easily treatable condition.
4/13/2004 - Raleigh, NC - An angry Muslim runs down five strangers with a car.
4/15/2004 - Scottsville, NY - In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.
6/16/2006 - Baltimore, MD - A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.
6/25/2006 - Denver, CO - Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.
7/28/2006 - Seattle, WA - An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.
2/13/2007 - Salt Lake City, UT - A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.
1/1/2008 - Irving, TX - A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their 'Western' lifestyle.
7/6/2008 - Jonesboro, GA - A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.
2/12/2009 - Buffalo, NY - The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.
4/12/2009 - Phoenix, AZ - A man shoots his brother-in-law and another man to death after finding out that they visited a strip club, in contradiction to Islamic values.
6/1/2009 – Little Rock, AR - A Muslim shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center explicitly in the name of Allah.
11/2/2009 - Glendale, AZ - A woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too 'Westernized.' (10-20-09)
11/5/2009 - Ft. Hood, TX - A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.
12/4/2009 - Binghamton, NY - A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.
4/14/2010 - Marquette Park, IL - After quareling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'.
4/30/2011 - Warren, MI - A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices.
9/11/2011 - Waltham, MA - Three Jewish men have their throats slashed by Muslim terrorists.
1/15/2012 - Houston, TX - A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim.
2/7/2013 - Buena Vista, NJ - A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.
3/24/2013 - Ashtabula, OH - A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.
4/15/2013 - Boston, MA - Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.
4/19/2013 - Boston, MA - Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.
8/4/2013 - Richmond, CA - A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death.
3/6/2014 - Port Bolivar, TX - A Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death and leaves a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
4/27/2014 - Skyway, WA - A 30-year-old man is murdered by a Muslim fanatic.
6/1/2014 - Seattle, WA - Two homosexuals are murdered by an Islamic extremist.
6/25/2014 - West Orange, NJ - A 19-year-old college student is shot to death 'in revenge' for Muslim deaths overseas.
9/25/2014 – Moore, OK – One woman is beheaded and another stabbed nearly to death by an American Muslim convert in their workplace.

Muslim terrorists are not responsible for all of the evil in the world. But they are responsible for enough of it that they need to be watched and profiled as a group, Pretending they're not Muslim, as the Council for Islamic American Relations, along with President Obama, would have you believe, is ridiculous and dangerous. Islam is not a religion of peace and the Quran does stress violence to deal with non-believers. To deny that is to deny reality.


Sunday, September 28, 2014

Feds Telling Ferguson PD What They Can And Cannot Do

Eric Holder's lynch mob... civil rights investigators in Ferguson, Missouri, have apparently decided they will be in control of the Ferguson Police Department. In a recent letter to the Ferguson Police Chief the Justice Department asked him to  'confirm our understanding that officers in the suburban St. Louis County department won't wear "I am Darren Wilson" bracelets while on duty.'

On Friday they released another letter instructing the Chief that his officers must wear name tags on their uniforms. Both letters were allegedly sent because people complained to federal investigators about both topics.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not under the impression that the Justice Department has the authority to order local police departments what they may or may not wear on or with their uniforms. It certainly is a good idea for police officers to have at least their last names visible but for the Justice Department to mandate it seems an overreach to me.

If I was the Chief of Police I would politely tell Eric Holder to mind his own business. The Ferguson police officers are doing what they're supposed to do - supporting their comrade who they believe did what was legally necessary to save his own life. And contrary to what the protesters, and others who want "Justice for Michael" are demanding - the case must be investigated and any evidence presented to the grand jury before anything else can occur. And the grand jury will have to decide whether or not to indict Officer Wilson.

Protesters and various black celebrities have already threatened increased and more severe rioting if that does not happen - justice be damned. They've let it be known that they will extract their own form of justice whether or not Darren Wilson is guilty of a crime. In my opinion, if it turns out Wilson is not indicted by the grand jury, at the time of the announcement the Ferguson PD, the St. Louis County PD, and the Missouri State Police should all be on hand with every bit of tactical gear and equipment they have and put the protesters down hard. They've made their threats. Let's see what they do when they're up against law enforcement who are ready for them.

Our disgrace of an Attorney General, who finally did the best thing he could do for America and tendered his resignation, has done nothing but stir up trouble in Ferguson by sending scores of FBI and civil rights investigators there before any local investigation had been completed. Following his visit Holder announced he was opening an investigation into the Ferguson PD itself, to determine whether the department employed policies and practices that resulted in a pattern of civil rights violations.

Holder told reporters he was opening the investigation based on things Ferguson residents had told him during his visit. Personally I believe Holder is going to do whatever he can to bring down the Ferguson PD and Darren Wilson because of the shooting, whether or not it is determined to be justified. He doesn't trust local officials to do it for him - because they might actually determine Wilson was justified in the shooting - that's why he's working on it himself.

I will be happy to see Eric Holder go. Hopefully this time President Obama will nominate someone who will actually follow the job description, upholding and enforcing the laws of the land rather than being selective about which he will and will not enforce. But what am I saying? President Obama enforces the law of the land in the exact same way.



Arrested For Being Illegal? Sue...!

A Mexican woman in Arizona was pulled over for having a cracked windshield. Police soon discovered she was in the country illegally and driving without a license and without proof of insurance. The woman was arrested and taken to a nearby Border Patrol office. Aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, she has now filed a lawsuit that states the police violated her Fourth Amendment right "to be free from unreasonable seizures by prolonging the length of her stop after the original purpose of the traffic stop was completed."

ACLU spokesperson Dan Pochoda said 'the officers didn't understand it's generally not a criminal act for an immigrant without permission to be in the country to remain in the United States, so the deputies' belief that she was here illegally didn't provide constitutional justification for detaining her.'

I've got news for you Dan. You may be an attorney and the legal director of the ACLU in Arizona but federal law says the woman is not supposed to be in the country without permission and proper documentation. Because the Obama administration (and apparently the ACLU) choose to ignore the law doesn't make it less illegal. The whole problem with our immigration policies, besides liberal politicians, is the fact that we don't enforce the laws as written.

The woman acknowledged to the police officers that she was in the country illegally and that she had applied for a visa citing domestic violence protection as the cause but that her visa has not yet been approved. The officers, in accordance with state laws concerning immigration enforcement - a law that has been upheld in the United States Supreme Court - took her to federal authorities so her immigration status could be determined.

Interestingly, she did not claim racial or ethnic profiling as part of her suit.

In other news,you've no doubt heard of the Muslim convert who beheaded a woman at her work site the other day in Moore, Oklahoma. Alton Nolan had recently been fired from his job at the same site after allegedly proselytizing his Muslim beliefs and saying women should be stoned for an offense, which led to an argument. He returned on Thursday with a knife and attacked two women, severing one's head completely and leaving the other in critical condition before being shot by a company official who happened to be an off-duty Sheriff's deputy. (A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a knife as well.)

While the FBI has been called in to investigate the possible connection between Nolan's Islamic faith and the beheading, Moore Police are denying such a connection exists saying there is no evidence that he has any ties to ISIS. They are calling it workplace violence.

I guess it's just another typical, random beheading after being fired.  You know - the kind we see on the news every day. What? You mean we don't see them every day in the United States? Oh yeah... that happens in Muslim countries. (hint, hint)

One thing is certain - if Nadal Hasan, who killed 13 people while shouting "Allahu Ackbar" at Fort Hood a couple of years ago, wasn't charged with terrorism this guy certainly won't be. It will simply be called a case of workplace violence, committed by a man who professes to be Muslim and in a manner consistent with recent killings committed by that "not Islamic" group, ISIS.

Political correctness could very well one day destroy the United States.


Friday, September 26, 2014

Obama Says "Islam Teaches Peace"

President Obama went before the United Nations once again and appeased Islam even as he was denouncing terrorism. A couple of weeks ago the President announced to the world that ISIS "is not Islamic" - even though everything they do they do in the name of Allah, Mohammed and the Quran. The President says they are not Islamic even though their immediate intent (and what they're already working toward) is to create an Islamic caliphate in the region, that includes Syria, Iraq, Jordon, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, part of Egypt and part of Turkey. They are doing it so that they can enact Sunni policies and Sharia law throughout the region. But it's not Islamic. The President said so.

Speaking yesterday at the UN the President said "I have made it clear that America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. Rather, we have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces – taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely upon. At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country."

"Islam teaches peace." Really? Where, exactly, do they teach it because Imams throughout the world, including right here in the United States, are preaching war on the West and death to the infidels, meaning us. Where in those phrases is the word "peace"?

Since he took office President Obama has found it necessary to defend Islam. If he's not a true Muslim, as some people believe, then he has enough affection for them from his childhood that he believes it is his job to promote Islam in this country. From his address when he said "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." to his assignment to the head of NASA (when he gutted the space program) to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering," the President seems to have made one of his goals the spread of Islam throughout the United States. What kind of President does that? What kind of Christian does that?

It occurred to me the other day that Islam is very similar to liberalism in its tolerance practices. They demand that the rest of the world accept and respect their Islamic views - even demand Sharia law be implemented in nations that are not considered Islamic - yet if you voice your disagreement with them or you demand they accept and respect your religious ideas and values you are immediately vilified and called a bigot or an Islamophobe. The more radical members threaten us with death in the name of tolerance and acceptance. Sound familiar?

Even liberals demand that we all accept and respect Islam. Many liberals believe what President Obama is selling - that Islam is a religion of peace - regardless of what their eyes tell them.

Last night on "The Kelly File," State Department spokesperson Marie Harf (the woman I thought should replace Jay Carney as the White House Chief Propagandist) was asked about the State Department and the President touting Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah for issuing a fatwah against ISIS even though that same shiekh had issued a fatwah calling for the killing of Americans in 2004. Ms. Harf said "We need respected voices in the Muslim world to stand up and reject the ISIS ideology."

When Megyn Kelly pressed her on the fact that the shiekh had issued a fatwah against Americans Harf, in her own ridiculous way,said “What we’re judging him by is what he says very openly right now about the fact that Muslims should reject ISIS’s ideology."

In other words - "We can overlook that he wants to kill Americans as long as he's backing us on the ISIS thing."

That is so amazingly similar to the attitude of many liberals when it comes to President Obama when he gets caught in a lie. That motto seems to be "Let's not worry about what he said before - let's just believe what he's saying now."

To be honest - I don't much care what President Obama says about Islam being a religion of peace. I don't care what British PM David Cameron says about Islam being a religion of peace. I don't care what the Council for Islamic American Relations says about Islam being a religion of peace. And I don't care what any of them say about ISIS not being Islamic. I will believe my own eyes and my own research about the subject - and they tell me that ISIS is Islam and Islam is mostly evil. Just because the majority of Muslims don't rise up against us means nothing. That same majority is not rising up against radical Islamic terrorists, which makes them complicit. You either take a stand against evil or you support it. Silence is support in this case.


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Presidents, Salutes And Respect For Our Military

Yesterday I wrote about the weak cup-in-hand salute by President Obama when he got off the helicopter in New York on Tuesday. Controversy arose with some criticizing the President for saluting at the last second with his coffee (or tea) cup in his right hand and others said it was no big deal... "a salute is a salute" some said.



Most active duty and veteran military members would disagree with the latter. As I said yesterday, a salute is a sign of respect. Anyone who renders a salute expects to receive one in return. Enlisted troops are required to hold a salute until the Officer returns it and drops his/her hand. The enlisted person may drop their hand after that. And while the President of the United States is in no way obligated to return the salute rendered by his detail, I believe if he's going to do it he should do it correctly.

The President returning a salute to his military detail began with Ronald Reagan. Reagan, who didn't return the salute initially because he didn't think it was proper to return a salute when not in uniform (which technically is a choice not a regulation) found that it bothered him and he decided to begin returning it. Reagan wrote about it in a memoir:

I never ceased to enjoy reviewing our men and women in uniform and hope I started a new tradition for presidents. As commander in chief, I discovered it was customary for our uniformed men and women to salute whenever they saw me. When I'd walk down the steps of a helicopter, for example, there was always a marine waiting there to salute me. I was told presidents weren't supposed to return salutes, so I didn't, but this made me feel a little uncomfortable. Normally, a person offering a salute waits until it is returned, then brings down his hand. Sometimes, I realized, the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman giving me a salute wasn't sure when he was supposed to lower his hand. Initially, I nodded and smiled and said hello and thought maybe that would bring down the hand, but usually it didn't. Finally, one night when Nancy and I were attending a concert at the Marine Corps headquarters, I told the commandant of marines, "I know it's customary for the president to receive these salutes, but I was once an officer and realize that you're not supposed to salute when you're in civilian clothes. I think there ought to be a regulation that the president could return a salute inasmuch as he is commander in chief and civilian clothes are his uniform." "Well, if you did return a salute," the general said, "I don't think anyone would say anything to you about it."

The next time I got a salute, I saluted back. A big grin came over the marine's face and down came his hand. From then on, I always returned salutes. When George Bush followed me into the White House, I encouraged him to keep up the tradition.


I have read some things that say saluting when not in uniform is a breach of military etiquette. That assumption is wrong. Active duty service members can salute a superior officer anytime - whether or not they are in uniform. New legislation has made it a law that veterans can now salute the flag during the national anthem if they so choose. (I'm not sure why this needed to be a law. If I want to salute the flag I'm going to do it anyway.) The President of the United States, given his status as the Commander in Chief, can return a salute if he wishes.  It's a sign of respect, plain and simple.

Of course, once a commotion began over President Obama's "Nestea salute", a photo of President Bush showed up (naturally) in which Bush was holding his dog and saluting at the same time. What people fail to understand about that photo is that according to military protocol, if someone is holding something with both hands he/she is not required to salute. Bush moved the dog to his left hand long enough to free his right hand and return the salute. It's not pretty but he made the effort. And that dog was bigger and heavier than a cup of tea.


As I said yesterday, the big difference for me in all of this is attitude and actions toward our military. In March of 2009, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed to the public that the Obama administration was considering a plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance. They wanted to save federal funds by making our wounded warriors pay for their own care. The plan was quickly abandoned due to public outcry.

President Bush, love him or hate him, loves our military. He visited the troops on a regular basis while in office and he still visits our wounded warriors today. He holds his annual 100K Wounded Warrior bike ride, riding alongside them and hanging out with them for three days in Southwest Texas. 






And who can forget this touching image? I have yet to see a photo like this of President Obama and I have serious doubts that it will ever happen.



President Obama has been to Afghanistan to visit the troops. I'll give him that. And he has been to a hospital once or twice to visit our wounded warriors. But he doesn't display anywhere near the love and concern for them as Bush does. For him it's mostly a photo opportunity.







Another outrage that hit the airwaves last year was the umbrella caper. President Obama had a couple of Marines hold umbrellas over him and then Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a speech in the rain in the Rose Garden. I give the President a little leeway on this since I'm sure he had no idea it's against Marine dress code regulations for them to carry or use an umbrella while in uniform. But the Marines certainly weren't going to refuse the President's request. 



When Bush visited overseas he didn't have a Marine carrying an umbrella over him. Nor did the head of state he was visiting provide someone to do it. Bush had his own umbrella the head of state had an assistant who did it. The contrasts are pretty remarkable if you really pay attention.



Let's not forget this little oversight. Look at the eyes of the Marine - waiting and wondering if the President is going to return his salute.



Personally, given President Obama's lack of a military background, I would be OK if he decided not to return the salute anymore. It is not required and it's just another point of contention that draws criticism. He would be perfectly within his right to make that decision and I would support it if he did. I saw a comment this morning from one person that said "He did do it correctly since he is not required to do it at all then any way he does it IS the correct way." And the guy who posted it says he's a Vietnam veteran. Apparently his love for Obama outweighs his love for his fellow service members.

Again - I don't care if President Obama discontinues the tradition. That's his choice. The only thing I ask is that if he's going to continue it, at least have the courtesy and respect to do it correctly. It's not difficult and it certainly improves his rapport with those serving on his detail. And like his Secret Service detail - those people should be important to him. They are, after all, volunteers.


Tuesday, September 23, 2014

President Obama And The Military Salute

The White House put out a video this morning of President Obama exiting Marine 1 in New York wearing sun glasses and carrying what appears to be a styrofoam or paper cup in his right hand. In the video it appears as he descends the last step he suddenly notices there are two Marines standing at attention and saluting him - something they do each and every time he boards or exits the helicopter. Sometimes there is one, sometimes there are two.

The President rendered a pitiful salute with the cup still clutched in his hand. It is said the President drinks tea rather than coffee most of the time - particularly when he is going to make a speech. He saluted the Marines with a tea cup.

Once the White House posted the video on Instagram it was game-on for Obama's critics and for military members, both active duty and veterans. For the life of me I can't understand why the White House would publish a video like that. Is there no one with the good sense to know that it would be offensive to many people? Or do they simply just not care?

The military salute is an honor given the President by all service members who are on Presidential details, be it at the White House, a foreign airport or a U.S. military base. Although the President is not required by any written protocol to return the salute, it has been customary since Ronald Reagan was President. Every President since has done it out of respect for the young service members who not only show the President that respect but who would die for him if necessary. President Obama does OK most of the time.

Last May, when boarding Marine 1, the President walked right by the young Marine standing at attention at the bottom of the stairs, holding a salute as the President passed. Obama got on the helicopter then, either realizing his mistake or having it pointed out to him, he exited the aircraft, spoke to the Marine and shook his hand. I gave him credit at the time for acknowledging the young Marine. I'm sure he (the Marine) would have been satisfied if the President had only stepped back out and saluted him but what Obama did was acceptable to me. I know others will disagree.

This time it was worse and there's not much that can change it. Even though he was never in the military, after nearly six years President Obama knows there will be saluting service members at the bottom of the step each and every time he enters or exits an aircraft. It's protocol. He really has no valid reason to screw it up. Yet, he did.

Some have said it's not a big deal; that there are far more important things to worry about than whether or not the President of the United States salutes his military escort. And they would be correct. There are more important things to worry about. But the salute is about respect. The young enlisted men show respect to the President by offering a salute as he approaches. They do it each and every time. Is it really such a difficult task for the President to return that respect - even if it isn't genuine?

Many believe the President doesn't much like our military as a whole. He seems to demonstrate that at times through his actions. I don't know if he does or not but returning respect to one or more enlisted men who volunteered for your detail and would do anything you asked them to do shouldn't be something taken lightly.

President Obama - if I may - I would like to give you a little advice. Please take the time to show some attention and respect to the military members who volunteer for your detail - every time. Not only did they volunteer but they had to go through some rigorous screening to ensure they qualified for the job. They are there to protect and serve you. Even given the possibility that they don't like you personally, they respect and honor the position that you hold and would die protecting you. They deserve your respect in return.

As I stated earlier - a salute is a sign of respect. Those Marines deserved a real salute, not a tea cup salute. Shame on you, Sir.


John Kerry's World Priorities: 1.) Climate Change, 2.) ISIS and Ebola

In a meeting with some foreign ministers on Sunday, just before the upcoming UN climate change summit, Secretary of State John Kerry said that climate change is creating "climate refugees." I'm not exactly sure what that means but you can bet if they're classified as refugees he'll be wanting to grant them asylum in the United States.

Secretary Kerry believes, and has been broadcasting to the world, that climate change is as important and should be addressed as immediately as ISIS and the Ebola outbreak. He really said that.

The term "climate refugees" is closely related to other terms that mean "people displaced by changes in their climate or environment due to natural disasters, droughts, rising sea levels, etc. There is a long list of so called climate/environment labels, including "environmental refugee", "forced environmental migrant", "environmentally motivated migrant", "climate refugee", "climate change refugee", "environmentally displaced person (EDP)", "disaster refugee", "environmental displacee", "eco-refugee", "ecologically displaced person" and "environmental-refugee-to-be (ERTB)."

Wait... environmental refugee to be? Really? And how many people do we have working on this kind of stuff that can come up with 12 different names for these so-called refugees?

It is said that tens of millions of people become climate refugees each year but the only examples given are in the drought stricken areas of Africa and Asia - in places that have had problems with droughts for centuries.

Environmental wackos, the ones like Al Gore and Lord Nicholas Stern, who continue to preach about global warming and ever-rising temperatures (which has yet to be proved since the Earth's temperatures fluctuate cyclically over time) causing the seas to rise, bringing with it massive coastal erosion. Yet they're silent about the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps growing at record rates. Or worse - they say that too is caused by global warming.

"We see people fighting over water in some places. There are huge challenges to food security and challenges to the ecosystem, our fisheries and ... the acidification of the ocean is a challenge for all of us," Secretary Kerry said.

"And when you accrue all of this, while we are confronting ISIL and we are confronting terrorism and we are confronting Ebola and other things, those are immediate," he added.

"This also has an immediacy that people need to come to understand, but it has even greater longer-term consequences that can cost hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars, lives, and the security of the world," Kerry continued.

Yeah - that's because climate change/global warming is killing people en mass every day, just like ISIS and Ebola. Only it's not. The sea levels aren't rising. The polar ice caps are growing. Winter this year is supposed to be a record cold and a record length. And Al Gore is still getting filthy rich selling his global warming malarkey.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that the Earth's surface temperatures this summer, including the oceans, have been at record highs. Yet hurricanes, the storms that are fed by warmer oceanic temperatures, have been minimal so far, with only 5 named storms so far. And September, the peak month for hurricanes, is nearly over.

I wonder how many people understand that global warming and climate change are products of computer models responding to data input from "climate scientists"? The models are like hurricane prediction models - they are computer generated and have multiple, conflicting outcomes. I have read several articles that say the way scientists get computer models to produce "accurate" results they have added extra CO2 to the equation, thereby causing the computer models to give them the results they wanted. That's how they came to the conclusion that man-made CO2 is causing global warming - because they fed CO2 data to the computer. Here's one of the paragraphs I read on skepticalscience.com:

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

I wonder if they injected extra cow flatulence into the equation instead of man-made CO2 they would get the same results? Or maybe they do that as well.

The UK Daily Mail last year published an article that said this: Predictions on global warming trends may not be as accurate as at first their studies suggest.

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming.

Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth's temperature rose.

The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.

I guess it comes down to who you believe. Bottom line is the science is manipulated by the scientists and the models produce varying results. Yet the polar ice caps continue to grow. And terrorists and Ebola are killing far more people at a much higher rate than any climate change or global warming. Secretary Kerry - come back to planet Earth for a little while and deal with the realities of the world. You can join Al Gore in La La Land after the real crises are under control.


Monday, September 22, 2014

Marchers For Climate Change Trash New York City

What is it about liberal protesters that makes them unable to clean up after themselves? In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York got so bad about trash, litter, and bodily elimination in public areas that protesters often had to be moved from certain areas so they could be cleaned. The trail of trash was long and heavy.

Yesterday in New York the "People's Climate March" moved from Columbus Circle through Midtown to Times Square and the far West Side. Their goal was "to bring attention to the relevance of climate change and its effects."

The march drew over 300,000 people including climate change nut profiteer Al Gore, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who will chair the United Nations' Climate Change Summit Meeting this week, and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, another left wing loon. Other celebrities participating were Leonardo DiCaprio, Sting, Mark Ruffalo, Ed Norton and Evangeline Lilly.

The march took most of the day - once having to stop because of the numbers of people and nowhere to move. Apparently there were no trash cans available either because this is what the streets looked like after the march was completed:





These are people who spent their day marching to "save the planet." Is it any wonder so few people take them seriously? Of course, those who do are the same people who have watched all of Al Gore's predictions fail to come to fruition and have watched him get even more filthy rich than he already was by pushing his global warming agenda and investing in green energy companies to take full advantage of the hysteria he created. The polar ice caps are supposed to be gone according to Gore. Instead they're both growing at record rates - something that proves virtually nothing except that Al Gore was wrong.

And yet Gore remains the hero of the "Save the planet from people" movement.

Remember when Glenn Beck and the Tea Party held its big rally in Washington DC a few years ago? Although they tried, critics were hard pressed to find trash scattered about. Mostly what they saw was this:




And finally, let's compare the Beck rally to the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009. It's interesting how many people on the left are so adamant about saving the planet, fighting climate change and keeping the Earth clean and green for the next generations but they can't seem to find a trash can when they need one...




Democrats Don't Like Free Speech...

...unless your speech agrees with theirs. It's a pretty well known fact and they continue to prove it on a regular basis.

Earlier this year Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), proposed a Constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to regulate campaign contributions at their will. The language is vague and you won't find the words "fair and equitable" in it anywhere.

Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. …

Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

This amendment would not only reverse the effect of the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases but could very well give Congress the authority to allow unlimited spending by incumbents while severely limiting spending by any challenger. It's no surprise that Senate Democrats, including Harry Reid, support the amendment.

Now for the latest attempt at removing freedom of speech that goes against the wishes and beliefs of liberals, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) over the weekend launched a campaign to, in their own words, "get Rush Limbaugh off the air."

In an e-mail recently sent out by the DCCC, with a subject title of "Petition: Rush Limbaugh off the air" was a push for 300,000 signatures to force Limbaugh's advertisers to drop him. The e-mail reads:

3OO,OOO Signatures Needed: Demand Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors pull their ads after his sexual assault comments.

Sandra Fluke has been the target of disgusting, sexist comments from Rush Limbaugh before. So his latest abhorrent rant is no surprise to her.

Stand with Sandra and help us hit 3OO,OOO signatures today to put real pressure on Rush’s advertisers to drop him once and for all.

First of all - anyone who would "stand with Sandra" should take a good look at their life. Sandra Fluke gained fame and notoriety demanding that American taxpayers pay for her birth control because she simply didn't want to. Rush Limbaugh attacked Fluke on his radio show for that demand, saying some not so nice things about her possible promiscuity (for which he later apologized.) Democrats were so enamored by her demand and so outraged by Limbaugh's response that she was invited to speak at their national convention in 2012. What a wonderful qualification for speaking to the DNC -a demand for government subsidized birth control. I guess it's not that surprising seeing as how the qualification of their Presidential candidate in 2009 was being a community organizer.

It's funny to me that Sandra Fluke wants to silence Rush Limbaugh. It's because of him that she's now famous. Fluke's demands for free birth control before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats would have gone virtually unnoticed if not for Limbaugh. Her invitation to speak at the Democrat convention was a direct result of her notoriety that can be directly attributed to Rush Limbaugh.

Ms. Fluke is now running for the California state Senate, having placed second in the primary, which puts her on the November ballot automatically. And in California her chances of winning, based on her demand for free birth control, are pretty high. (Look who they elected governor.) Again, she wouldn't even be famous if it wasn't for Rush. And now she wants Limbaugh off the air.

Some people are just ungrateful.


Sunday, September 21, 2014

Public Schools Losing Common Sense

On Tuesday in Norborne, Missouri, 7 year old Zane Faulk came home from school crying. Zane had gotten into trouble at school for the horrible transgression of having an empty rifle shell casing in his possession in class.

It seems Zane had gone to a 9/11 memorial event and had been given the shell casing as a souvenir. He stuck it in his pocket and had forgotten about it. He then wore those pants to school on Tuesday and didn't realize it was still in his pocket. He was in class when he discovered it and he took it out and showed it to some of his classmates.

Zane's teacher saw the shell casing and took it and Zane to the principal's office. The principal told Zane he "could be suspended for 10 days" but instead Zane was punished with a "silent lunch" where he had to sit alone and eat and not talk to anyone, and took away his recess privileges for the day.

Zane's mother, Sherry, understands and supports the school's no gun policy but believes the school went overboard in this case. “The principal proceeded to reprimand him as though he were bringing live ammunition to school. I understand that’s in the policy, in the handbook, that they can’t bring guns to school, I fully support that, but it’s an empty blank casing,” Falke said.

Falke called the school and explained the significance of the shell, which was actually a spent blank cartridge. “Had he brought a war medal to school, would he have been punished?” Falke asked. “They also passed out American flags to all the kids, if he brought that to school would he have been punished?” (In some parts the California the answer to the second question would be "Yes," depending on the day.)

“In today’s society, unfortunately, we do have to be concerned with those types of things in schools,” said Dr. Roger Feagan, Superintendent of the Norborne R-VIII School District. "Though this seems minor, if we don’t handle the minor things, they can unfortunately escalate into major things down the road,” he added.

The use of common sense would have dictated that the teacher take the shell casing from the boy because it was a distraction for Zane and other students. If she felt the need to report it to the principal, I can even understand that. But common sense would have made the principal sit Zane down and explain to him that items like that are not allowed to be brought to school and that he could have it back at the end of the day. The kid is 7 years old. Punishing him for something that could have been so easily handled in another manner shows a substantial lack of common sense.

Now let's go out to California, where a 13 year old student was given detention because he shared his lunch with another classmate, who apparently was less than pleased with the lunch the school had given him.

Weaverville, California, is a small town in the mountains of Northern California, between Eureka and Redding. Eighth grader Kyle Bradford shared his chicken burrito with a friend who didn't like the school-prepared cheese sandwich that they'd given him.

“It seemed like he couldn’t get a normal lunch so I just wanted to give mine to him because I wasn’t really that hungry and it was just going to go in the garbage if I didn’t eat it,” Kyle said.

The Trinity Alps Unified School District apparently has banned kids from sharing food items, ostensibly because of the fear of food allergies. “We have a policy that prohibits students from exchanging meals. Of course if students are concerned about other students not having enough to eat we would definitely want to consider that, but because of safety and liability we cannot allow students to actually exchange meals,” superintendent Tom Barnett said.

I remember going to lunch when I was in school. Everybody shared everything. Never once did any of my friends suffer a food allergy from eating something I gave them, nor the other way around.

Kyle's mother says Kyle is being punished for having good manners. “By all means the school can teach them math and the arithmetic and physical education, but when it comes to morals and manners and compassion, I believe it needs to start at home with the parent,” Sandy Bradford told the local news station.

Once again, common sense would dictate that while Kyle did break a rule, sitting him down and explaining why he wasn't allowed to share his lunch with his hungry friend would have been a better way to handle it. In my humble opinion giving him detention was simply the school flexing its muscles instead of its compassion.

The school official who documented the incident on a "Detention Slip For Student Misconduct" wrote on it "Kyle came through the line and got a lunch then while at the table gave it to another student. Policy is no sharing food, which he is fully aware of."

Really? I think that school official should be given detention for poor grammar and poor punctuation. Commas are needed after "then" and "table" and one should always avoid ending a sentence with a preposition. Clearly if Kyle is going to break a school rule with an act of kindness, school officials should be held accountable for poor grammar and punctuation. 

Have you heard about the young girl who was tossed out of a class for saying "bless you" when another student sneezed? According to the girl, her teacher heard it and turned around saying "There will be no Godly talk in my classroom." 

The school says the girl was thrown out of class because speaking out and saying "bless you" was disruptive. If that's the case, why not throw out the other kid who sneezed? Surely a sneeze is 
disruptive in a classroom setting.

This particular teacher has a list of things on the chalk board that are not allowed to be said in her classroom. "Bless you" is on the list. It seems to me that the teacher prohibiting "Godly talk" in her class is a First Amendment violation, even in a school environment. Prohibiting a student from saying anything that might pertain to God is not within their scope of authority. At least I don't believe it is.





How about we bring some common sense into our school systems? Has the art of communication disappeared from our schools these days? Punishing students for minor infractions will do less to make them behave than it will serve to make them resentful. 

I remember when I was in grade school and learning the difference between the words "principle" and "principal" I was told "You can remember which is which because the Principal is your 'pal.' And back then it wasn't far from the truth. The two principals I had during my grade school years were kind, caring men whose compassion for their students was obvious in their words and actions. It seems those days are over. We need them back.


Saturday, September 20, 2014

ET... The Illegal Alien

While driving home last night Arden and I got to talking about aliens - the kind from space. I don't even remember now how the subject came up but eventually I told her I had never seen an alien - except for some Mexicans and a few Chinese who tried to sneak into the country through Puerto Rico via the Dominican Republic.

For some reason my mind drifted to the movie "ET." I realized that ET was not only an alien but he was an illegal alien. He came here without authorization from the federal government. He basically snuck into the country by night so as not to be detected and lived in the shadows for the same reason. He didn't have a green card or a visa and he had no plans to get one.

That said - ET was, however, the perfect illegal alien. He didn't bring a family with him. He never once took a dime of welfare or any other "entitlement" from the government. He didn't take a job from an American citizen. He didn't have children while here in an effort to gain entitlements or citizenship. And he set out immediately to learn the language.

The government did spend some major cash on medical care for him when he got sick but it wasn't done at his request. And finally,he would have been the perfect immigrant. He was intelligent, had the skills to invent his own deep space communication device, and never really asked for anything in return except acceptance.

When ET was healthy again he did the right thing. Instead of sending for his family members to join him, he returned home, thus not being a burden on our society.

ET was the perfect illegal alien. Well - with the exception of the millions of dollars spent to keep him alive and study him at the same time. Again - not his fault.

Oh - Arden pointed out another fact that I hadn't thought of. It seems there is a question about ET's sexual preference. Although he did come out about halfway through the movie - he spent much of the first half in the closet. But that's a topic for another day....


Friday, September 19, 2014

Obama And The Art Of War

In my 57 years of life I cannot think of a single time when a U.S. President has given so much information to an enemy before and during a war.

Back in 2009, President Obama told the United States and the world that he would withdraw all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. He made good on that promise, appeasing his voting base and bragging about it. Against the advice of his military leaders he did not leave a residual force in Iraq to maintain peace and to hold on to the military gains we had made. 

Two and a half years later, half of Iraq is under control of the brutal Islamic terrorist organization, ISIS. Funded initially by the Obama administration (because they were rebels fighting against Bashar Assad in Syria) ISIS recruited and expanded, taking not only Northwestern Iraq but the Eastern half of Syria as well. They did this virtually unimpeded for two reasons. In Syria, Assad has so many things going on, and so much opposition, he didn't have the resources to deal with ISIS. And in Iraq, the U.S. troops were gone and the Iraqi army, facing an enemy who kills anyone and everyone who opposes them, soldiers or not, ran away in fear. City after city that was liberated by U.S. forces fell to ISIS until they got to Baghdad, where the Iraqi army had no choice but to fight to hold their own.

Iraqi officials begged President Obama for assistance with fighting ISIS. Obama refused. ISIS now controls the cities of Mosul, Falluja, Tikrit, Sinjar, Baiji, and Qaim and Ana, and pretty much all the open territory in between.

Of course, now that ISIS has done this President Obama wants no part of the troop withdrawal he bragged about. Now he says the withdrawal was the combined fault of George W. Bush and the Iraqi government. All of his bragging about the troop withdrawal suddenly turned into denial of responsibility. Imagine that.

In Syria, where ISIS originated, they have not conquered quite as many cities but they are moving. And while the Assad regime and the U.S. share a common goal of defeating ISIS, that is the only common ground the two governments share. The United States is still trying to figure out how to battle ISIS and arm yet another group of Syrian rebels to fight against Assad at the same time. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said recently "In Iraq, we have a government that has asked for our help and asked for our support and welcomed us in. That obviously is not the case in Syria."

Well, duh. Why would Assad ask for our help when Obama has made it clear he wants Assad out of power? 

Harf went on to say "the Assad regime's own actions that helped lead to the rise of ISIS."

That's only true in the basic sense. The Assad regime is responsible for the formation of the rebel group that became ISIS. Backed by Al Qaeda, they formed to fight against the Assad regime to oust him. Even though they were backed by our enemy, Al Qaeda, the Obama administration armed and funded them because they opposed Assad. It was then that they began to expand and grow.

President Obama is now going to fund another group of Syrian rebels, the"moderate rebels" to fight against ISIS and the Assad regime. The problem with that is - those "moderate rebels" have already signed a non-aggression agreement with ISIS. We're going to fund a group that won't fight. How stupid are we, really? Ah - but that's a story for another day.

Earlier this year, and once again against the advice of his military leaders, President Obama announced to the world that he would pull all American troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016. For some reason (personally I call it narcissism) the President believes that the hostilities of a war immediately and automatically cease because he has declared the war over. In fact - he took things one step further and traded five Taliban generals for a U.S. army deserter declaring "That's what you do at the end of a war. You exchange prisoners." He also said those five Taliban generals would not return to the battlefield.

The big problem there is that the war is not over and four of the five have returned to the battlefield - one with the Taliban and the other three with ISIS. Great move, Mr. President.

Most recently, President Obama finally made a public statement of his strategy for fighting ISIS. Once again going against his military leaders, the President told the world he would increase air strikes but would not, under any circumstances, put U.S. troops back on the ground in a combat role. Even his Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Martin Dempsey, disagrees with Obama's decision. And Obama is being criticized by military experts nationwide for broadcasting that information to the enemy when the fight has barely begun.

Marine General James Mattis, who retired last year, told the House Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron of the highest nature) that Obama was tying the hands of the U.S. military with his blanket prohibition of U.S. troops on the ground. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”

Our fighting forces have to be in a state of emotional conflict. They want and need a Commander-in-Chief that will utilize their skills, training and capabilities for their intended purpose. The President likes to say he won't put our soldiers in harm's way. But is that not what they're trained for?

Retired General Thomas McInerney said in an interview last night that the only way to beat ISIS is for President Obama to hit them hard, as we did to Iraqi forces in 2003 - overwhelming air strikes followed by a large ground force to clean up the residual ISIS forces. But we all know President Obama won't do that. And if he did you can bet he'd broadcast his intentions well ahead of the actual implementation of them.

It seems President Obama is sometimes our enemies' best ally. Giving useful information to the enemy has always been considered treasonous - at least until Obama took office. Now it seems to be the norm. I'm already feeling sorry for our military members who have fought so hard (with some making the ultimate sacrifice) in Afghanistan. You can bet it won't take long, after our troop withdrawal, for the terrorists to fill in the void. Once that happens all of the sacrifice of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will have been for naught. And regardless of what Obama or anyone else might claim - that won't be the fault of George W. Bush.


Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Adrian Peterson Ignites Parental Rights Debate

Minnesota Vikings' star running back, Adrian Peterson, is just one more NFL player in the news these days for an act of violence. Peterson stands accused of child abuse after "beating his child with a stick," normally called a "switch" by my parents.

Mr. Peterson apparently disciplined one of his sons by hitting him with a stick/switch causing welts to his legs and buttocks. Peterson has admitted that he "went overboard" in his discipline and has stated his regret for hurting his child. He was initially suspended for one game, then reinstated on Monday. Following pressure from fans, women's groups, etc., Peterson has now been allowed to take paid time away until the case is decided in court.

The case has opened a large and varied discussion in America on corporal punishment of a child by parents. Some people feel children should never be spanked for any reason. Others feel spanking, under controlled conditions and without anger, is good for a child. While others feel it should be avoided and only done as a last resort.

On the radio this morning I heard Dr. Keith Ablow, a Psychologist and frequent Fox News contributor, say that while there may be occasions when spanking, as a last resort, might be the answer, if you've resorted to spanking you've failed as a ommunicator. Basically he contradicted himself. His example was if a child keeps running in the street, regardless of how many times you tell him not to do it, the answer may be a spanking followed by discussion of why he was spanked and why he needs to stop doing what he's doing. In that case, the doctor said, “you could be saving his life.”

He still reiterated that spanking should not be done in the course of every day parental discipline.

And I agree with that for the most part. But like many people of my parents' generation, my parents did not spare the rod when it came to discipline. They disciplined us with spankings with everything from a hand to a switch, a belt to a wooden spoon, heavy metal kitchen spoons and as I recall, even a fly swatter at least once.

By today's standards my parents would have done time, as would most of the parents of my friends. Spanking was something parents did prior to the 70s. And while the numbers of parents who discipline their children with corporal punishment has greatly decreased, some whowere discilplined in that manner as children have carried it over to their own child. Certain cultures of Americans, Southern families, and many black families, particularly in the South, still adhere to such discipline practices. None other than Charles Barkley of NBA fame said as such in a TV interview just the other day.

I never used a belt or a switch on my son but when words and/or the loss of privileges failed to resolve the problem he felt the sting of my hand on occasion.

My understanding is that Adrian Peterson went too far in his discipline of his son, leaving not just welts but some welts that actually bled. If that's the case (I haven't seen the pictures) it was certainly wrong but was it child abuse or merely a form of discipline that Peterson allowed to get out of hand? I don't have the answer to that question. I was left with welts on my body after being spanked with a switch or a belt. It's what skin does. I never once felt like I was being abused because with the exception of one particular incident in which I really wasn't the one who did the wrong thing, I pretty much deserved my punishment. But that was a far different time.

The NFL screwed up by reinstating Peterson following only one game. Their motivation was money in all likelihood. Suspending Peterson until any and all legal proceedings have concluded is the right thing to do and shows NFL families and the nation that the NFL is concerned about domestic violence among their players. Too bad they waited until they received criticism from around the nation before they did it.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not condoning what Adrian Peterson did to his son. Even if corporal punishment is accepted in society, to beat a child to the point of bleeding is wrong. I do understand it, however – I lived through it. My brother and sisters did as well – although I believe my brother and I received it far more than my sisters did. (No doubt very deservedly.) And we all turned out pretty well - with respect for others, love of God and country, and the desire and determination to do the right thing in all circumstances.

I don't know if Adrian Peterson is a chronic child abuser or someone did the wrong thing and will now have to suffer the consequences. Only he, his wife, and God know that truth about that. I read an article earlier that said he has been reported once before for possible child abuse. Often where there is smoke there is fire. But it's up to the legal system to look into it and take the action that is best for the child. If the court decides he's guilty he needs to pay the price and get some training in proper parenting skills. If they say he made a mistake the NFL will have to decide how seriously they are going to persue the issue. Mandatory parenting classes would probably be a good idea either way.

But that's my opinion. I could be wrong.


Tuesday, September 16, 2014

ISIS Leaders, Sex Toys And A "Religion Of Peace"

What has one got to do with the other, you ask? Actually nothing, unless you're an unlucky goat in the desert surrounded by lonely Islamic radicals who just can't help themselves. So why the title?

I was perusing the internet this morning and came across a couple of articles that caught my interest. The first was about the five Taliban commanders that were traded for Army deserter Bo Bergdahl a few months back. According to the article, which has not been vetted yet, three of those five Taliban leaders have now joined ISIS as leaders. The article states "eyewitnesses place Fazi, Wasiq, and Noori in Iraq and Syria fighting with ISIS."

The Obama administration and some House Democrats said the five Taliban commanders would not return to the battlefield, either because of age or because they just wouldn't. Within weeks of their return, one had already rejoined the Taliban and now, months later, three have joined ISIS. President Obama should be charged with treason and aiding and abetting the enemy. But not to worry - the House voted to formally condemn Obama for making the trade without notifying them in the appropriate manner. Yeah - that'll work.

Now on to sex toys. Jacksonville, Florida. It has been reported that Clinton Middle School in Duval County hired a 39 year old woman to teach sex education to 6th graders. One of the teacher's classes involved demonstrating sex toys, particularly the kind of phallus women wear attached to a harness. One of the students took pictures of the demonstration during which the teacher actually put it on (over her clothing, thank God) and then laid on her back with her legs in the air and demonstrated how it should be inserted. These kids are 11 and 12 years old!

The pictures (which are quite graphic) found their way to school administrators who, it is said, suspended the teacher. She, in turn, said that her suspension was nothing but "bigotry" because she's a "proud member of the LGBTQ community." Right. There's nothing wrong with graphically demonstrating sex toys to children  and anyone who believes otherwise is a bigot against alternative lifestyles. Got it.

This story may or may not be true. It has been circulated around the nation but has not been verified as of yet. But that's not the only problem with Common Core.

Common Core has come under fire across the nation for various reasons, sex education included. One book approved for 4th graders is called "It's Perfectly Normal." It teaches nine year olds how to masturbate. The teaching of alternative lifestyles is mandatory in many states under Common Core. When did these sensitive and potentially moral subjects become the responsibility of the schools to teach our children? Oh wait - I know the answer to that. It began in June of 2010 when the Common Core curriculum was introduced into our schools.

Last night I watched British Prime Minister David Cameron address the media in his own country concerning the beheading of David Haines, a British aid worker who had been held in captivity for about a year prior to his execution over the weekend. Like President Obama, Cameron addressed ISIS as ISIL and stated that ISIS is not Islamic because "Islam is a religion of peace." So there you have it. Two top leaders of the free world, who are contemplating going to war a "major counter terrorism operation" against ISIS are still calling them non-Islamic and saying Islam is a religion of peace, despite the worldwide evidence (terrorism, honor killings, female genital mutilation, cutting off limbs, authorized beating of wives, etc.) to the contrary. If anyone should know better it would be Cameron. His country is nearly besieged by Muslims these days.

The Obama administration is "putting together a large coalition" to fight ISIS, even as Obama declares he will not put boots on the ground to do it. Funny thing - he's not getting the cooperation he thought he'd get from other nations. A few countries (France, Italy, Great Britain, and Canada) have said they would do what they could (France did agree to assist with air strikes) but none have committed fully to a battle. Middle Eastern (Islamic) nations have so far not committed to anything, although Saudi Arabia did say they would let coalition forces base in Saudi Arabia.

It seems as though no one really trusts Obama to follow through with his plans to defeat ISIS. According to a recent NBC poll, only 28 percent of Americans believe it. Obama doesn't have a great track record when it comes to carrying out his threats. The red line he drew against Assad in Syria didn't do much for his credibility. Our friends and allies are worried. So what is Obama doing now? Contacting Iran and Russia to see if they'll be willing to help. I'm surprised he's not asking Assad to help in this one. But Assad, being emboldened by Obama's red line failure last year, has told Obama he might launch an offensive against American aircraft if they enter Syrian airspace. Obama has promised a counter attack if Assad makes good on his promise. It will prove interesting, to say the least.

President Obama has a habit of rejecting the military advice of his top generals. He refused to leave a residual force in Iraq during the troop withdrawal, of which the ISIS occupation of half of Iraq and half of Syria is the consequence. He has been told ISIS cannot be defeated without boots on the ground, eventually, yet he has stated and reiterated that he will not be doing that. I hope he was a better community organizer than he is Commander-in-Chief. He sucks at being the CIC (and sucks at being President.)

So why did I put all of these subjects in one post? Well, for one thing it's been a slow news day so far. But I think these situations all show the deterioration of morals and values in the world today. We have radical, Islamic terrorists killing tens of thousands of innocent people including women, children and Christians, and the world mostly sits back and watches. We have Muslims pushing to take over the world as that world mostly sits back and watches. We have teachers in our schools teaching grade school age children about sex toys, masturbation, alternative lifestyles, etc., complete with graphic pictures and demonstrations, as many adults in our country sit back and watch, saying nothing. We have an education system being taken over by liberal progressives, contaminating young minds with subjects that not only shouldn't be taught to children but should be taught by parents rather than the school system.

And some people are OK with all of this. If it doesn't affect them directly it's nothing they spend time thinking about. And that's pretty scary all the way around.


Monday, September 15, 2014

When Did Student Patriotism Become Politically Incorrect?

In Spartanburg, South Carolina, school district #4 it seems the American flag is not welcome.

Four students at Woodruff High School in Spartanburg were remembering the attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, by flying American flags from the beds of their pickup trucks on Thursday. Aaron Fulmer, the high school principal, confiscated all four flags from the boys because "it's against district policy to draw attention to one's vehicle."



The students were not punished and the flags were returned to each of them at the end of the school day. But what kind of logic is it when American flags are confiscated from students' vehicles on 9/11? I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I would guess that the flags on the boys' trucks weren't there to drew attention to their vehicles. That's what over-sized chrome rims, decals, shiny paint, big tires, stripes, loud exhausts, etc., are for, aren't they?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the flags were in remembrance of the 9/11 attacks. After all - they did it on 9/11 and there's no mention of them doing it any other time. The flags were there to catch people's attention, not the trucks.

Parents of the students complained to the school and to the school board. Principal Fulmer says school officials will be meeting with student council members next week to discuss possible policy changes. That's probably a smart idea.

To his credit, the one thing Principal Fulmer did not say was that the flags "might offend someone." Remember a couple of years ago when students in California were sent home for refusing to turn their American flag t-shirts inside out because it was Cinco de Mayo? School officials said they did it to prevent the possibility of violence from the large number of Mexican and Mexican/American students they have. The only problem with that is - this is the United States of America. We are not obligated to celebrate or even recognize Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican holiday celebrated mostly by Americans. And rather than prevent the violence on the part of the Hispanic students, the school punished the boys for being American.

The California parents took the case to court. Unfortunately, the judge bought the student safety aspect of it and the school board triumphed.

How about the case of students in Camarillo, California, being forced by school officials to remove American flag bandanas because both Camarillo and Rio Mesa high schools have a large Hispanic population and school administrators "wanted to be sensitive to other spectators." Apparently having Hispanics in your school, at least in California, means the American flag must be hidden away. It's just wrong.

I can't help but wonder if the students at any of these high schools still say the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. Somehow I doubt it.

Apparently a protest has been planned for Woodruff High School students and anyone else who wants to join in. It was planned for today so I'll have to watch the news to see if the story was reported. A Facebook page announced the protest: "PLEASE COME OUT MONDAY MORNING AND STAND UP FOR OUR STUDENTS RIGHTS AND OUR RIGHTS!" it says. "7:50 a.m. Sidewalk in front of high school. Bring an American flag with you!!"

That works for me.


Professor Says There Is No Anti-Semitism In Middle East

Hillary Mann Leverett, the Senior Adjunct Professorial Lecturer at the School of International Service at American University, told MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry recently that anti-Semitism doesn't really exist in the Middle East. No, really... she said that.

"Well, you know, if you look at Jewish communities in other places around the Middle East, there certainly was, after the creation of the State of Israel – and especially after the '67 war – an emigration of Jews from many of these Arab countries to Israel. But there still are Jewish communities. So, for example, there's a thriving Jewish community in Iran. And when I've talked about that, people say, 'Oh, that's so terrible. How can you say that? Of course, they're suffering.' Well no, I've actually been there. I've been to the kosher restaurants. I've been to the Jewish hospital in Iran."

"There is not this deep-seated Arab/Jewish or – you know, Muslim/Jewish animosity. There's not an anti-Semitism in the Middle East the way that there was in Europe, which is based on race; which is based on color; which is based on genes and biology. That doesn't exist in the Middle East. There's no history of that in the Middle East."

She was correct about one thing. There is not a deep-seated animosity between Muslims and Jews - on the Jewish side. The Jews just want to live in peace. If Muslims would leave them alone they would leave Muslims alone. The Palestinians would live in peace in Gaza if Hamas wasn't constantly attacking Israel.

Melissa Harris-Perry, being the brilliant host that she is, followed up Leverett's comments with "As horrible as it is, I somehow feel somewhat more optimistic, if this is a problem rooted in 1967, and not in the beginning of time in some way."

OK. Good point. No, wait...  what?

Professor Leverett obviously doesn't pay much attention for someone whose faculty page at the university says "her research primarily focuses on 'politics and international relations of the Muslim world, U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and Asia, diplomacy, international negotiation, and conflict resolution.'"

Does she not see, in her research, the verses in the Quran that condemn Jews? Does she not hear (past) leaders of Egypt and Iran, Mohamed Morsi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who voiced their desire to "wipe Israel off the map"? Did she not hear Morsi once say Egyptians should "nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews and Zionists"?

Soon after taking office in 2013, Iran's new President, Hasan Rouhani said: "In our region there's been a wound for years on the body of the Muslim world under the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the beloved al-Quds (Jerusalem).  The Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed."

Does Leverett not know of the charter of the terrorist group Hamas? Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, "The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core."

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors," says one line of the actual charter. While that particular line itself doesn't contain anti-Semitic language - what other reasoning would Leverett give for Hamas wanting to destroy Israel? Perhaps she believes it's because Israel "occupies" the Palestinian State - the one that doesn't exist.

Various speeches have been made by Muslim scholars and preachers in recent years that call for the destruction of Israel, if not by Allah then "at the hand of the believers."

In January, 2009. Egyptian Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi stated:

"O Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. O Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. O Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. O Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, O our God. ... O Allah, do not spare a single one of them. O Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

A few weeks later al-Qaradawi expressed his views on Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

Palestinian preacher Ibrahim Mahdi said in a sermon:

"Palestine will be, as it was in the past, a graveyard for the invaders – just as it was a graveyard for the Tatars and to the Crusader invaders, [and for the invaders] of the old and new colonialism.... A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: 'The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.' What could be more beautiful than this tradition? 'The Jews will fight you' – that is, the Jews have begun to fight us. 'You will be set to rule over them' – Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jew? Allah ... Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land.... O Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest heavens.... O Allah, show the Jews a black day.... O Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters.... O Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land.... O Allah, forgive our sins...."

On another occasion Madhi stated:

"O beloved of Allah ... One of the Jews' evil deeds is what has come to be called 'the Holocaust', that is, the slaughter of the Jews by Nazism. However, revisionist [historians] have proven that this crime, carried out against some of the Jews, was planned by the Jews' leaders, and was part of their policy.... These are the Jews against whom we fight, O beloved of Allah. On the other hand, [what is our belief] about the Jews? Allah has described them as donkeys."

Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, stated in a sermon

If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female. A woman may set out [on Jihad] without her husband's permission, and a servant without his master's permission. Why? In order to annihilate those Jews.... O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.

I could go on and on but I think you get the picture. Professor Leverett apparently doesn't. She visited one Jewish settlement and a hospital in Iran and decided there is no such thing as anti-Semitism in the Middle East. One can't help but wonder what her definition of anti-Semitism is.

At least she was on the right network...