In a recent interview with ABC, Texas Governor Rick Perry said "The rule of law requires the Constitution of the United States to secure the border, and we haven’t done that. What has to be addressed is the security of the United States. You know that, I know that, the President of the United States knows that. I don’t believe he particularly cares whether or not the border of the United States is secure. That’s the reason there’s been this lack of effort, this focus, this lack of resources.”
I must say I agree with Governor Perry. Now that the main stream media has begun reporting (albeit very sparsely) on the crisis at the border the President is finally beginning to address the problem of the ever growing numbers of illegals, including unaccompanied children, flowing into the country virtually unimpeded.
Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to talk about the problem. Those who speak out anyway say they are overrun by thousands of illegals entering the country every day. Many of these people are put on planes and buses and transported around the country - then dropped off in public with a promise to appear in court on a certain date.
One of the first steps taken by Obama to end this catastrophe was to ask Congress for $2 billion to help with hearings and deportation of adults. He wants to pay Central American countries to take their own citizens back. How stupid is that?
Unlike the case with adults, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 says that minors cannot be returned to their home country without first having a hearing. That bill was unanimously approved in the House and Senate and signed into law by George W. Bush - who also did nothing to secure the borders. So we can't simply turn the kids around once they get here. But if Obama would secure the border they wouldn't get here. If they were unable to get across our border they would become Mexico's problem. And while the president of Mexico would no doubt excoriate us for being "inhumane" for not letting them into our country anymore, you can bet he would stop them from entering his Southern border very quickly so he didn't have a humanitarian crisis on his own hands.
While the Obama administration likes to pretend this huge influx of illegals was a surprise to them, the truth is that Governor Perry has been warning the administration of this pending problem for at least four years. Two years ago he asked Obama to send the National Guard to the border to assist Border Patrol agents until more Border Patrol agents could be trained and deployed. In 2013 Obama called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be deployed to the borders to assist with non-law enforcement duties. And still the border is insecure.
What President Obama either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore is the fact that before you can clean up the mess from a flood the water flow has to be stopped. Channeling the water to other areas doesn't fix the problem. It seems as if he's more interested in leaving the dam broken and simply channeling the water into any area where he can get it to go. And there is evidence to show that he began making plans to channel the water back in January when his administration was already looking for places to house illegals that were expected to arrive.
Many people, including me, believe this entire problem was orchestrated by the Obama administration to accomplish two goals. First - since legislators cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion on immigration reform the President can use this crisis to push forward with his own plans, thus bypassing Congress (and stepping outside of the Constitution) to do it. And second - he will try to make amnesty a priority, giving as many illegals citizenship in order to gain more Democrat votes for the 2016 election.
The word has gone out to Mexico and Central America that anyone who makes it to the USA won't be returned. Mexican commercials tell people they can get government assistance and food stamps if they make it here. And now the Obama administration is "surprised" by the increased influx? Right....
The bottom line is that right now we need to worry less about immigration reform and more about enforcing the existing laws. Preventing people from entering our country illegally would be a huge step toward reforming our immigration policy. If you don't have a country full of illegals you don't have as many enforcement problem. But what am I saying? Obama's only enforcement problem is deciding which laws he won't enforce anymore.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Friday, July 4, 2014
Straight Talk About Income Inequality
I must say I agree with this man completely. I've never heard his show but might have to check him out. Extremely good points all the way around. Wish I'd said this:
In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama’s “income inequality speech”:
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education and/or employment.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a
restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you
more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.” Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.
America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit and that of the Democratic party. That’s what socialists offer.
In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama’s “income inequality speech”:
Two Americas
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn't.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn't.
It’s not the haves and the have not's, it’s the do's and the don'ts.
Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.
It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.
It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.
That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America .
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers; they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn't.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn't.
It’s not the haves and the have not's, it’s the do's and the don'ts.
Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.
It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.
It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.
That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America .
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers; they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education and/or employment.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a
restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you
more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.” Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.
America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit and that of the Democratic party. That’s what socialists offer.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
If This Doesn't Make You Angry...
...then you don't deserve to live here either.
Barack Obama... President of the United States Barack Obama... needs to find another country in which to live and lead. He certainly doesn't need or deserve to live in this great nation.
Yeah, I said it. I'm more than fed up. The man hates the United States of America - the country that is the very reason has what he has today. Obama would not be the leader of the free world, have the education or the income that he has if he lived anywhere else in the world. Yet he still continues to trash the very country that elected his dumb ass not once but twice to the highest office in the land.
What has me riled up, you ask?
This:
“America is a great country. There is no denying this. However, I caution you all as you step forward in your careers. Peer back into history and ask yourselves- Was a revolution truly necessary? Great Britain may not have had it completely right, but they had many things right. Take taxes for example. If your neighbor makes $1 Million a year, but you and your family can barely keep the heat on should he not help your family? God instructs us to help our neighbors. He does not instruct us to look down upon them though the windows of capitalism. Why then on the Fourth of July should you celebrate such a radical break from what is Godly and just? No doubt there are many voices warning you of the harm of big government. They are wrong. Government can provide you with what family and friends cannot. If this is gone what will you have?”
President Obama made that little gem of a speech to a group of college-student, summer Congressional interns yesterday. "Was a revolution truly necessary?" Great Britain had it right on taxes? And people are wrong about big government being the answer? Our President is telling college kids this as they begin their new summer jobs as interns to the government?
Obama's speech yesterday made a few things very clear. Either he hates America and what we stand for - freedom, individual liberties and a government controlled by the people, or he believes we'd be better off still under British rule and paying taxes to the king. What he apparently doesn't understand is that he would never be the king of England. If we had never had the revolution, Obama probably would never have been born, let alone have been important.
It was reported that when Obama made these comments the room got uncomfortably quiet. Julie Barks, an intern from Louisiana State University, asked President Obama, “Are you saying we should not celebrate the birth of our country?”
President Obama responded, ”I believe we should celebrate where we are going. Celebrate moving forward. Not where we have been.”
President Obama responded, ”I believe we should celebrate where we are going. Celebrate moving forward. Not where we have been.”
As I said above - if it wasn't for where we have been, Obama would not be where he is and going forward. But he is so narcissistic he doesn't realize that. Or simply ignores it for his own truth.
Barack Obama does not deserve to live in this incredible, one of a kind nation, let alone be the President. He needs to find some small little socialist country that believes as he does, values him as highly as he values himself, and will tolerate his narcissism. I, for one, am fed up. Between now and 2016 I will do whatever I can to help conservatives get elected to both the House and the Senate and get Obama impeached. Any American President who hates our history (and our country) as much as he does deserves to be removed from office. And since it won't happen as long as Crazy Harry Reid leads the Senate - he needs to be replace with a conservative as well.
I am 57 years old and spent 30 years working for the federal government. I have only been ashamed of my government twice. The first was caused by Jimmy Carter and the second by Barack Obama. But by comparison, Obama makes Jimmy Carter look competent. That's what worries me. Obama is one of three things... a Muslim plant (which many people believe), an insidious socialist/Marxist who is bent on taking America down, or an incompetent boob who simply does not know how to run a country.
Perhaps he is all three, rolled into one. Only he knows for sure. But he's screwing up the country and by his own words he isn't proud or pleased with America. So his reasons for becoming President can only be construed as destructive.
SCOTUS Denies Birth Control For Women... And Other Myths
On Monday, June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued their ruling in the Hobby Lobby case of religious freedom. I'm sure everyone has heard about the case but just in case someone missed it - Hobby Lobby filed suit against the government and the mandate in The Affordable Care Act that corporations who provide health care benefits for their employees must also provide for any and all forms of contraception as part of their insurance coverage.
Hobby Lobby, founded by devout Christian David Green, filed suit against the government because he did not want to be forced to provide "certain types of contraceptives" that may kill a fertilized embryo because his religious beliefs say that abortion, even drug induced, is murder.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Green and said that while Hobby Lobby must abide by the AFA, they did not have to provide for 4 specific types of birth control, which include abortion inducing drugs and IUDs.
Liberals, feminists, Democrat politicians and the main stream media went ballistic. Many said the Supreme Court was "denying women their reproductive rights" while others took it further and said the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby were "denying women health care" in general. Neither of those claims are anywhere near the truth.
Hobby Lobby employee health care insurance policies cover 16 of 20 forms of contraception. Let me say that again - sixteen of twenty forms of contraception. To say the Supreme Court decision denies women their reproductive rights is blatantly false. The only forms of contraception they do not cover, in accordance with their religious beliefs, are the four I mentioned above - IUDs and abortion inducing drugs. And the decision made by the Supreme Court doesn't prevent women from obtaining those four products - it merely says that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for those.
The statements being made about the court preventing women from obtaining birth control, or being denied health care in general because of this decision are flat out lies. Yet they're being spread nationwide by the media - checked only by FOX News and conservative pundits. Even the President, who claims to be a "constitutional lawyer" says the decision is wrong - because apparently he knows more about the Constitution than the Justices on the Supreme Court.
The false rhetoric I don't find that surprising. It happens all the time. Liberals get hit with a truth they don't like and they go ballistic, lying about what is and isn't real. Nope - that doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me (but only a little) are the calls for Hobby Lobby to be "burned to the ground" because the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Shouldn't they be objecting to the Supreme Court and call for their destruction? Or maybe they should call for the burning of the Constitution since it's the document on which they based their decision.
Other people said they would "never set foot in Hobby Lobby again." If you stop shopping there or burn down Hobby Lobbys what happens to the employees who depend on their jobs to survive? Is that the compassion and tolerance of liberals - punish the employees for the beliefs of the owners? By the way - those owners make their Christian beliefs well known to their employees. A part of their mission statement is "to honor the Lord by following Biblical principles; establishing a work environment that builds character, strengthening individuals and nurturing families and providing a return on its owner's investment so he can share the Lord's blessings with its 13,000 employees." Would anyone have any doubts about their Christian values after reading that? I'm pretty sure everyone who hires on with Hobby Lobby understands what the owners believe.
Some are saying that the Greens are "forcing their religious beliefs on their employees." Really? So not paying for abortive birth control is forcing their Christian beliefs on people? What part of "abortive birth control" is religious? They're not threatening anyone. They're not telling anyone what to believe. They're not firing women who choose to use the morning-after pill. They're simply saying "If you want that form of birth control we simply cannot pay for it."
Again - the Supreme Court ruled that it's the company's right, based on their professed and protected beliefs, not to pay for that type of birth control. Want to be angry about it? Be angry at Bill Clinton for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It would be interesting to see how the employees themselves feel about the decision. I hope someone does a survey of Hobby Lobby female employees soon to see what their reaction is. Hobby Lobby pays their employees a minimum of $15 an hour - more than enough for most people to afford contraceptives - even those not covered by Hobby Lobby's insurance plans - and provides health insurance plans for their full time employees. That's far better than most companies. And still liberals are complaining?
I'm not opposed to people disagreeing with the Supreme Court's decision on this issue. What I am opposed to is people lying about what it means and about the overall effects. It does not do away with "women's reproductive rights" (whatever those are) nor does it do away with health care coverage for women. If you want to oppose something do so - but do it honestly with factual information rather than lies and propaganda. People will respect you more for it.
Hobby Lobby, founded by devout Christian David Green, filed suit against the government because he did not want to be forced to provide "certain types of contraceptives" that may kill a fertilized embryo because his religious beliefs say that abortion, even drug induced, is murder.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Green and said that while Hobby Lobby must abide by the AFA, they did not have to provide for 4 specific types of birth control, which include abortion inducing drugs and IUDs.
Liberals, feminists, Democrat politicians and the main stream media went ballistic. Many said the Supreme Court was "denying women their reproductive rights" while others took it further and said the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby were "denying women health care" in general. Neither of those claims are anywhere near the truth.
Hobby Lobby employee health care insurance policies cover 16 of 20 forms of contraception. Let me say that again - sixteen of twenty forms of contraception. To say the Supreme Court decision denies women their reproductive rights is blatantly false. The only forms of contraception they do not cover, in accordance with their religious beliefs, are the four I mentioned above - IUDs and abortion inducing drugs. And the decision made by the Supreme Court doesn't prevent women from obtaining those four products - it merely says that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for those.
The statements being made about the court preventing women from obtaining birth control, or being denied health care in general because of this decision are flat out lies. Yet they're being spread nationwide by the media - checked only by FOX News and conservative pundits. Even the President, who claims to be a "constitutional lawyer" says the decision is wrong - because apparently he knows more about the Constitution than the Justices on the Supreme Court.
The false rhetoric I don't find that surprising. It happens all the time. Liberals get hit with a truth they don't like and they go ballistic, lying about what is and isn't real. Nope - that doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me (but only a little) are the calls for Hobby Lobby to be "burned to the ground" because the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Shouldn't they be objecting to the Supreme Court and call for their destruction? Or maybe they should call for the burning of the Constitution since it's the document on which they based their decision.
Other people said they would "never set foot in Hobby Lobby again." If you stop shopping there or burn down Hobby Lobbys what happens to the employees who depend on their jobs to survive? Is that the compassion and tolerance of liberals - punish the employees for the beliefs of the owners? By the way - those owners make their Christian beliefs well known to their employees. A part of their mission statement is "to honor the Lord by following Biblical principles; establishing a work environment that builds character, strengthening individuals and nurturing families and providing a return on its owner's investment so he can share the Lord's blessings with its 13,000 employees." Would anyone have any doubts about their Christian values after reading that? I'm pretty sure everyone who hires on with Hobby Lobby understands what the owners believe.
Some are saying that the Greens are "forcing their religious beliefs on their employees." Really? So not paying for abortive birth control is forcing their Christian beliefs on people? What part of "abortive birth control" is religious? They're not threatening anyone. They're not telling anyone what to believe. They're not firing women who choose to use the morning-after pill. They're simply saying "If you want that form of birth control we simply cannot pay for it."
Again - the Supreme Court ruled that it's the company's right, based on their professed and protected beliefs, not to pay for that type of birth control. Want to be angry about it? Be angry at Bill Clinton for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It would be interesting to see how the employees themselves feel about the decision. I hope someone does a survey of Hobby Lobby female employees soon to see what their reaction is. Hobby Lobby pays their employees a minimum of $15 an hour - more than enough for most people to afford contraceptives - even those not covered by Hobby Lobby's insurance plans - and provides health insurance plans for their full time employees. That's far better than most companies. And still liberals are complaining?
I'm not opposed to people disagreeing with the Supreme Court's decision on this issue. What I am opposed to is people lying about what it means and about the overall effects. It does not do away with "women's reproductive rights" (whatever those are) nor does it do away with health care coverage for women. If you want to oppose something do so - but do it honestly with factual information rather than lies and propaganda. People will respect you more for it.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Clinton Attempts To Smooth Things For Hillary
It didn't come as a big surprise to many when former President Bill Clinton attempted to smear the GOP in an interview on "Meet The Press" Sunday. He claimed the GOP has a double standard when it comes to the Benghazi incident on September 11, 2012.
"When 10 different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there?" Clinton asked. "Zero," he said matter-of-factly.
"When 10 different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there?" Clinton asked. "Zero," he said matter-of-factly.
Clinton conveniently overlooked the fact that of those killed during Bush's two were military members, one was with the Forest Service, none was an Ambassador, and most happened away from their assigned embassies. The list is as follows:
1. Barbara Green, an employee at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, killed in a hand grenade attack on a church, 2002.
2. Laurence Foley, a U.S. Agency for International Development official, shot dead outside his home in Amman, Jordan, 2002.
3. Edward Seitz, diplomatic security officer, killed in a rocket attack on a U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport, 2004
4. Jim Mollen, the U.S. Embassy’s consultant to Iraq’s education ministry, shot dead while driving in Baghdad, 2004.
5. Barbara Heald, an Army civilian, killed in Iraq during a rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, 2005.
6. Keith Taylor, a Navy commander, killed in the same rocket attack as Heald, 2005.
7. Stephen E. Sullivan, a diplomatic security agent, killed in a bomb explosion in Mosul, Iraq, 2005.
8. David Foy, facilities maintenance officer at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killed in a suicide bomb attack in his car near the consulate, 2006.
9. Steven Stefani IV, Forest Service employee, killed in bomb explosion in Afghanistan, 2007.
10. John Granville, a USAID official, shot dead in his car while returning from a New Year’s Eve party at the British Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, 2008.
2. Laurence Foley, a U.S. Agency for International Development official, shot dead outside his home in Amman, Jordan, 2002.
3. Edward Seitz, diplomatic security officer, killed in a rocket attack on a U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport, 2004
4. Jim Mollen, the U.S. Embassy’s consultant to Iraq’s education ministry, shot dead while driving in Baghdad, 2004.
5. Barbara Heald, an Army civilian, killed in Iraq during a rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, 2005.
6. Keith Taylor, a Navy commander, killed in the same rocket attack as Heald, 2005.
7. Stephen E. Sullivan, a diplomatic security agent, killed in a bomb explosion in Mosul, Iraq, 2005.
8. David Foy, facilities maintenance officer at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killed in a suicide bomb attack in his car near the consulate, 2006.
9. Steven Stefani IV, Forest Service employee, killed in bomb explosion in Afghanistan, 2007.
10. John Granville, a USAID official, shot dead in his car while returning from a New Year’s Eve party at the British Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, 2008.
The comparison of these incidents compared to the organized terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, in which the fight by former American Navy SEALs lasted up to 7 hours before they were killed, without any assistance from the White House or our military units within range, and the notable absence of the President from the Situation Room, is ludicrous.
Clinton wasn't quite accurate about there being no reaction from Congress concerning any of the attacks. Situations being completely different - no - there was no big outcry. But the death of Barbara Green in Pakistan prompted a Congressional investigation into the lack of proper security outside the embassy. “Despite recommendations by several panels since the late 1980′s, programs to enhance security outside the embassy walls remain a porous patchwork,” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who presided over the hearing into the matter.
Maybe not outrage but they did investigate it and determine that security was lacking. Not that anyone did anything about it.
I can answer the most important part of Clinton's question with another question - the one that David Gregory should have asked. "Mr. President - in any or all of the events you cited during the Bush administration - how many times did President Bush, his Secretary of State, or his U.N. Ambassador, go on national television and lie to the American people about what happened?"
Yeah. That's what I thought.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
A Short Speech From History...
There are those who subvert morality as a means to gain or entrench power.
There are those who believing themselves liberals, chart a course that can but lead to destruction.
There are those cynically inclined whose restless impulse is ever seeking change.
There are those who are constantly trying to alter our basic concepts of freedom.
There are those who seek to prevent men from fearlessly speaking their minds according to the dictates of their conscience.
There are those who plan to limit our individual right to share in the sovereign power of the people.
There are those who seek to subvert government from being the guardian of the people's rights to make it an instrument of despotic power.
There are those who plan to alter the Constitutional checks & balances established to preserve the integrity of our coordinate branches.
There are those who seek to make the burden of taxation so great and the progressive increase so alarming that the spirit of adventure, tireless energy and masterful initiative which built the material strength of the nation shall become stultified and inert.
There are those who seek to make all men servants of the state.
There are those who seek to change our system of free & private enterprise which, whatever its faults, commands the maximum of energy from human resources & provides the maximum of benefits in human happiness and contentment.
Finally and perhaps the most deadly are those who seek to convert us to a form of socialistic endeavor leading directly to the path of communist slavery.
As a counter-balance of those forces is the deep spiritual urge in the hearts of our people, a spiritual urge capable of arousing & directing a decisive and impelling public opinion, this indeed is the greatest safeguard and resource of America, so long as it exists we are secure for it holds us to the path of reason. It is an infallible reminder that our greatest hope rests upon two mighty symbols, the Cross and the US Flag. The one based upon those immutable doctrinal teachings which provide the spiritual strength to persevere along the course that is just and right, the other based upon the invincible will that human freedom shall not perish from the face of the earth. These are the mighty bulwarks against the advance of those atheistic predatory forces which seek to destroy the spirituality of the human mind and to enslave the human body.
On this day set aside for all Americans to re-pledge their allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands let us pray for the spiritual strength and innate wisdom to keep this nation to the course of freedom charted by our forefathers, to preserve it as a mighty instrument on the earth, to bring order out of existing chaos, to restore liberty where liberty has perished, to re-establish human dignity and discipline where it has disappeared.
- General Douglas MacArthur 14 June 1951
I Don't Know Where To Start...
These days watching the news sometimes makes me yell at my poor television. The things going on in this country with our government and the craziness of some of our citizens absolutely drive me nuts. And it only takes a few minutes of watching the news to get me riled up. I'll give you some examples.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four decision, sided with Hobby Lobby on the religious rights of closely held for-profit businesses not to be forced to provide certain birth control methods to which they object for religious purposes. The left went crazy. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, to Sandra Fluke and countless others reacted by one again quoting the "war on women" and that the SCOTUS effectively took away their "right to reproductive health care!" But let's look rationally at the details for a moment.
Hobby Lobby provides health care coverage for their full time employees. Included in that health care coverage are 16 of 20 different forms of birth control. The Supreme Court decision yesterday gave Hobby Lobby the right to refuse to cover four specific types of birth control that effectively cause fetuses to be aborted spontaneously. Hobby Lobby's Christian owners/founders believe abortion is wrong according to their deeply held religious beliefs. They are not "refusing to provide health care" nor are they "refusing to provide reproductive health care" - they are saying "We object to these four on Biblical principles and we do not want to be forced to provide them." The majority of the court agreed.
Some women are complaining that five men made the majority decision because it doesn't affect them. But honestly, anyone who thinks Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan are going to vote against any part of the Affordable Health Care Act lives in a fantasy world. It came down to the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by none other than Bill Clinton. And now his wife, who wants to be President so badly she can't stand it, is complaining because the Supreme Court upheld a religious right that her husband guaranteed with legislation. Go figure.
The White House responded to the decision with the typical arrogance of Barack Obama. They have pointed out over the years that President Obama is a “constitutional lawyer,” - even though some staff at the University of Chicago say he was rarely there.
Sucking up to the President in typical leftist media fashion, ABC's Jim Avila asked “Does the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office agree with the Supreme Court’s premise that companies have freedom of speech and companies have freedom of religion?”
Josh Earnest's response was classic Obama rhetoric:
“As the constitutional lawyer that sits in the Oval Office would tell you: He would read the entire decision before he passed judgment, in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far — based on the preliminary reading of that decision — is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views that are held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses. We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court.”
As a "constitutional lawyer" does the President believe he knows more about it than the Supreme Court Justices? What am I saying? Of course he does. He has pointed out their mistakes every time they have ruled against him.
“There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage.” That statement, besides being grammatically incorrect, is misleading. They still have contraceptive coverage. They just won't get coverage for those four types of contraception from a company whose owners believe abortion is murder. And seriously – if free, abortion-inducing contraception is that important as a condition of your employment you simply need to find a new place in which to work.
Liberals took to Twitter yesterday following the decision and began calling for Hobby Lobby stores to be burned to the ground. Really? The Supreme Court of the United States makes a decision you disagree with so you want to burn down the stores that took the case to the court? All I can say is – true liberal “tolerance” on display.
In other news – John McCain showed his true colors following the despicable campaign trick pulled by Thad Cochran in Mississippi last week. Cochran lied about his Tea Party backed challenger during his campaign for re-election and was able to get about 35,000 Democrats to vote for him. Had Cochran stuck to Republican voters he would have lost the election by 8 points.
John McCain praised Cochran's tactics. "There are some people complaining that African-American voters voted. But I thought one of the major priorities of the Republican Party was to get all minority and ethnic voters out to vote for Republicans."
McCain conveniently left out the fact that these “African-American voters” were also Democrats.
McCain said Cochran's “get out the vote campaign” was “excellent” and that he will face similar re-election difficulties in Arizona if he decides to run again in November. "The key is you'd better pay attention, you'd better work hard, you'd better organize. And you'd better understand that there's a strong anti-Washington/anti-incumbency sentiment out there, which is justified and you've got your work cut out for you."
Apparently John McCain, should he decide to run again, will do whatever it takes to get re-elected, particularly since his popularity in his own state is waning. He so much as stated that very intention.
And finally, I became amused at Bill O'Reilly's anger last week at a popular blogger who ambushed Hillary Clinton on the street and asked her if she would sign one of her books and dedicate it to murdered Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. O'Reilly said the man's tactic was disgusting and rude. Apparently Bill believes in “Do as I say and not as I do.” He sends his producer, Jesse Watters, out to ambush people for interviews on a regular basis. But it seems O'Reilly draws the line at doing it to Hillary Clinton. Why is that, Bill? Because she's Hillary Clinton?
At the current time Mrs. Clinton is an author whose book debut is failing miserably. She's not a Secretary of State nor is she a Presidential candidate. Well... perhaps in her mind she is. She is the wife of a former President and as such she deserves a modicum of respect. But no more than the respect she showed to the four murdered Americans in Benghazi and their families. Mrs. Clinton lied to the faces of the families, telling them about the video. How respectful is that?
No Bill – what that blogger did to Hillary was no different than your hit pieces done by Jesse Watters. Remember Judge Baugh? What he did was despicable – but certainly no worse than letting four people be murdered by terrorists and lying about it.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four decision, sided with Hobby Lobby on the religious rights of closely held for-profit businesses not to be forced to provide certain birth control methods to which they object for religious purposes. The left went crazy. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, to Sandra Fluke and countless others reacted by one again quoting the "war on women" and that the SCOTUS effectively took away their "right to reproductive health care!" But let's look rationally at the details for a moment.
Hobby Lobby provides health care coverage for their full time employees. Included in that health care coverage are 16 of 20 different forms of birth control. The Supreme Court decision yesterday gave Hobby Lobby the right to refuse to cover four specific types of birth control that effectively cause fetuses to be aborted spontaneously. Hobby Lobby's Christian owners/founders believe abortion is wrong according to their deeply held religious beliefs. They are not "refusing to provide health care" nor are they "refusing to provide reproductive health care" - they are saying "We object to these four on Biblical principles and we do not want to be forced to provide them." The majority of the court agreed.
Some women are complaining that five men made the majority decision because it doesn't affect them. But honestly, anyone who thinks Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan are going to vote against any part of the Affordable Health Care Act lives in a fantasy world. It came down to the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by none other than Bill Clinton. And now his wife, who wants to be President so badly she can't stand it, is complaining because the Supreme Court upheld a religious right that her husband guaranteed with legislation. Go figure.
The White House responded to the decision with the typical arrogance of Barack Obama. They have pointed out over the years that President Obama is a “constitutional lawyer,” - even though some staff at the University of Chicago say he was rarely there.
Sucking up to the President in typical leftist media fashion, ABC's Jim Avila asked “Does the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office agree with the Supreme Court’s premise that companies have freedom of speech and companies have freedom of religion?”
Josh Earnest's response was classic Obama rhetoric:
“As the constitutional lawyer that sits in the Oval Office would tell you: He would read the entire decision before he passed judgment, in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far — based on the preliminary reading of that decision — is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views that are held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses. We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court.”
As a "constitutional lawyer" does the President believe he knows more about it than the Supreme Court Justices? What am I saying? Of course he does. He has pointed out their mistakes every time they have ruled against him.
“There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage.” That statement, besides being grammatically incorrect, is misleading. They still have contraceptive coverage. They just won't get coverage for those four types of contraception from a company whose owners believe abortion is murder. And seriously – if free, abortion-inducing contraception is that important as a condition of your employment you simply need to find a new place in which to work.
Liberals took to Twitter yesterday following the decision and began calling for Hobby Lobby stores to be burned to the ground. Really? The Supreme Court of the United States makes a decision you disagree with so you want to burn down the stores that took the case to the court? All I can say is – true liberal “tolerance” on display.
In other news – John McCain showed his true colors following the despicable campaign trick pulled by Thad Cochran in Mississippi last week. Cochran lied about his Tea Party backed challenger during his campaign for re-election and was able to get about 35,000 Democrats to vote for him. Had Cochran stuck to Republican voters he would have lost the election by 8 points.
John McCain praised Cochran's tactics. "There are some people complaining that African-American voters voted. But I thought one of the major priorities of the Republican Party was to get all minority and ethnic voters out to vote for Republicans."
McCain conveniently left out the fact that these “African-American voters” were also Democrats.
McCain said Cochran's “get out the vote campaign” was “excellent” and that he will face similar re-election difficulties in Arizona if he decides to run again in November. "The key is you'd better pay attention, you'd better work hard, you'd better organize. And you'd better understand that there's a strong anti-Washington/anti-incumbency sentiment out there, which is justified and you've got your work cut out for you."
Apparently John McCain, should he decide to run again, will do whatever it takes to get re-elected, particularly since his popularity in his own state is waning. He so much as stated that very intention.
And finally, I became amused at Bill O'Reilly's anger last week at a popular blogger who ambushed Hillary Clinton on the street and asked her if she would sign one of her books and dedicate it to murdered Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. O'Reilly said the man's tactic was disgusting and rude. Apparently Bill believes in “Do as I say and not as I do.” He sends his producer, Jesse Watters, out to ambush people for interviews on a regular basis. But it seems O'Reilly draws the line at doing it to Hillary Clinton. Why is that, Bill? Because she's Hillary Clinton?
At the current time Mrs. Clinton is an author whose book debut is failing miserably. She's not a Secretary of State nor is she a Presidential candidate. Well... perhaps in her mind she is. She is the wife of a former President and as such she deserves a modicum of respect. But no more than the respect she showed to the four murdered Americans in Benghazi and their families. Mrs. Clinton lied to the faces of the families, telling them about the video. How respectful is that?
No Bill – what that blogger did to Hillary was no different than your hit pieces done by Jesse Watters. Remember Judge Baugh? What he did was despicable – but certainly no worse than letting four people be murdered by terrorists and lying about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)