Basketball, Sexuality, Benghazi and President Obama....

One might look at the title of this post and wonder how those four things could possibly be connected.  Well, I'm here to explain it.  Please read on...

Recently, Jason Collins, a player for the Washington Wizards basketball team, came out as openly gay.  The media immediately jumped on the story and it went nationwide.  Not unusual for a major story about a very controversial and popular topic.  Collins has now been anointed and praised as the “first openly gay major league athlete”, to which I say “Who really cares?”  It’s his business and his life. 

Obviously there are some who really care.  President Obama took the time to congratulate Collins and offered support on Collins' courage and willingness to be the first in the four dominant pro sports to make this announcement.  (I guess some people have been waiting for this event.  But seriously, why is it an important issue?)

Michelle Obama also tweeted a message to Collins.  "So proud of you, Jason Collins! This is a huge step forward for our country. We've got your back!" she tweeted, signing it "-mo," which indicates she - not an aide - sent the message.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “here at the White House we view that as another example of the progress that has been made and the evolution that has been taking place in this country, and commend him for his courage, and support him in this effort and hope that his fans and his team support him going forward."

It seems as if coming out suddenly makes you a great American or something.  I don't get it.  There are so many people in this country that demonstrate their greatness on a regular basis and now your sexual preference is one of those things that gets you recognition?

As I said, I really don’t care about Jason Collins’ sexual preference or his announcement to the world concerning it.  It doesn’t affect my life one way or the other.  What bothers me about the announcement is the response from the White House.  The President was quick to go public with support for Collins, which would be OK if he had been as quick to go public with praise and support of the victims and survivors of the Benghazi incident.  I don’t remember reading about any tweets from the President or the First Lady in support of the survivors of that vicious and deadly attack in Libya.  I don’t remember Jay Carney saying anything about them publicly.  In fact, it seems as though the President did his best to conceal most of the information about Benghazi (and still is.)  Could it be that the administration holds sports stars and celebrities in higher regard than American citizens who are in harm’s way overseas?  Come to think of it, I don’t remember the President tweeting anything about Chris Kyle, a true American hero, when he died tragically.  But let a pro basketball player announce he’s gay and that man gets the full support of the Obama administration.  I’m sure he’ll be invited to the White House for a one on one with the President in the near future, and probably get some kind of an award for bravery.

There are those who will decide I’m simply a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, and that I simply hate the President, because of this post.  And that’s OK.  None of those could be further from the truth and people who decide who you are without knowing you are the ones with the problem.  I’m simply saying I believe the President might have his priorities a little mixed up.  As President and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, the Mr. Obama should be more concerned and supportive of federal employees and our military than anyone.  They (federal employees and military) for the most part make him look good, after all.  But he seems to place more importance on celebrities, pro athletes and golf than he does on real issues, like Islamic terrorism and…  Islamic terrorism.  He won’t even link the two words.

There are others who will echo Hillary Clinton’s words about Benghazi…  “What difference, at this point, does it make?”  To them I would say – ask the victims and family members of the Benghazi and Boston incidents.  I would bet they might have some colorful explanations about why it matters.  Or they could ask Jason Collins.  I'm sure now that he's come out his opinion will carry more weight - at least with those who think it's important.

The Case For Surveillance On Muslims...

During a talk show debate the other day, Congressman Peter King (R), New York, said that many law enforcement agencies are observing and monitoring Islamic neighborhoods and groups in the United States.   Citing New York as an example, Congressman King said law enforcement monitor the groups looking for radical and/or terrorist type activities that need to be investigated and trying to discover how American citizens become radicalized to jihad.

Since about 90% of recent terrorist activity in the world is committed by radical Islamists, and there have been numerous incidents in the USA prevented (and several that were not prevented) it only makes sense to watch the groups who spawn the radical behavior.  Congressman Keith Ellison, (D), Minnesota, the first Muslim ever elected to a US House seat, disagrees. 

“Once you start saying we’re going to dragnet or surveil a community, what you do is you ignore dangerous threats that are not in that community and you go after people who don’t have anything to do with it," Ellison said.  He then went on to make the ridiculous comparison of Islamic monitoring to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2.

Now Congressman Ellison, I’m not well educated and not a huge student of history but I can tell you why you're wrong and why your comparison is so ridiculous.  First of all, specific task forces are set up to monitor/surveil specific groups.  It doesn't cause law enforcement to "ignore dangerous threats that are not in the community" as you state.  Secondly – radical Islam is responsible for most of the terrorism in the world today.  Want statistics?  Here they are, beginning with the attacks on the USA on September 11, 2001, and the number of people left dead in parentheses:

     

1.  1 Sep 2001: crashing of planes into WTC, New York, Pentagon in Virginia, and Pennsylvania, USA (2,993)

2.  12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)

3.     29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)

4.     1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)

5.      21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)

6.      27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)

7.      2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)

8.      11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)

9.      24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)

10.   28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)

11.   14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)

12.   5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)

13.   11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)

14.   16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)

15.   23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)

16.   22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)

17.   3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)

18.   6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)

19.   27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)

20.   18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)

21.   3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)

22.   7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)

23.   14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)

24.   18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (137)

25.   17 Feb 2008: bombing at dogfighting festival in Kandahar, Afghanistan (105)

26.   2 July 2008: Jerusalem bulldozer attack, several cars on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem, Israel using a front-end loader .  (3)

27.    26 July 2008: Ahmedabad bombings, India. Islamic terrorists detonate at least 21 explosive devices in the heart of this industrial capital. (56)

28.   3 August 2008:  Mogadishu bombings in Somalia. (21+)

29.    21 August 2008:  Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan spokesman Maulvi Umar claimed that the group was responsible for 21 August 2008 suicide bomb attack on a military complex.

30.    23 August 2008: Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for the 2008 Swat Valley bombing.

31.    13 September 2008:  Delhi, India - Pakistani extremist groups plant bombs at several places including India Gate, out of which the ones at Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and Greater Kailash explode (30)

32.    29 October 2008:  Hargeisa–Bosaso bombings by Al-Shabaab.  (30)

33.    6 November 2008:  Someone using the name Abdur Rehman claimed that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan was behind a 6 November 2008 suicide bombing that targeted tribal elders.  (16)

34.    26 November 2008: Muslim extremists kill at least 174 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India's largest city and financial capital, Mumbai.

35.   30 March 2009:  In telephone interviews with news media Mehsud claimed responsibility for the 30 March 2009 attack on the police training academy in Lahore

36.    4 April 2009 – Mehsud claimed responsibility for the Binghamton shootings, stating that they were in retaliation for continued missile strikes from American drones.

37.   18 June 2009 – 2009 Beledweyne bombing by Al-Shabaab.  (35)

38.    17 July 2009: Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels bombing in Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta, Indonesia;  (9)

39.    27 August 2009: Azam Tariq, spokesman of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at a security checkpoint along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Torkham on 27 August 2009. Tariq said by telephone that the attack was the first in retaliation for the death of Baitullah Mehsud.  (35)

40.   5 October 2009: Azam Tariq claimed responsibility for a suicide attack that killed five at the UN's World Food Programme Islamabad offices.

41.    12 October 2009: The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, through Azam Tariq, claimed responsibility for the October 2009 attack on the army's headquarters at Rawalpindi.

42.   15 October 2009: The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for three separate coordinated attacks in Lahore

43.    25 October 2009: Baghdad, Iraq. During a terrorist attack, two bomber vehicles detonated in the Green Zone, killing at least 155 people and injuring 520.

44.    28 October 2009: Peshawar, Pakistan. A car bomb is detonated in a woman exclusive shopping district, and over 110 killed and over 200 injured.

45.    3 December 2009: The 2009 Hotel Shamo bombing in Mogadishu, Somalia. A male suicide bomber disguised as a woman detonates in a hotel meeting hall. The hotel was hosting a graduation ceremony for local medical students when the blast went off.  (25)

These statistics are only through 2009.  I could go on but this post would be more like a book.   The list for 2010 was so long it would take at least four pages to list them all.  Do you get the idea, Congressman Ellison?  Are you seeing any patterns here – no matter how simple?  Radical Islam is a force to be reckoned with and, as such, Islam as a whole bears some scrutiny - especially since “peaceful” Islam as a whole has not stood up and said “Enough!”

Oh, and since you brought it up, Congressman, let’s look at the list of known incidents of terrorism and/or espionage by Japanese-Americans before or during World War 2 that led to their internment:

1.

There’s your list.  Do you understand now why your comparison was so ridiculous?  I doubt it.

I will agree that it's sad when a "religion" has to be under law enforcement surveillance however, just last year in Michigan, some Christian protesters were outside of a Muslim festival carrying signs and they were attacked by the Muslim crowd and assaulted with bottles and rocks.  And the police did absolutely nothing about it.  People like that need to be watched.  And where do you stand on the World Church of the Creator?  Are you against them being monitored?

Radical and militant groups are constantly watched in the United States.  White Supremacist groups and militias are watched.  Black extremist groups are watched.  (At least they have been.  Since Eric Holder ignored voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in 2008 that may have changed. )  Extremist environmental groups are watched.  And according to the Department of Homeland Security even  military veterans and Christians (especially evangelical Christians – you know – like Billy Graham) are watched these days.  And God help you if you happen to be both a veteran and a Christian.  So get over it, Mr. Ellison.  As long as Islam continues to blow up innocent people around the world they are going to be a target for surveillance and monitoring.  They are the ones who capture people, torture and kill them.  But I guess it’s just too easy to ignore that type of behavior to further your own cause.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Did You Know About...?

Did you know that on August 23, 2012, ten employees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) filed a lawsuit in federal court against their director, John Morton, and Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, for not allowing ICE agents to properly do their jobs?

It’s true.  In 2011, citing funding and manpower shortages, Secretary Napolitano issued a memorandum ordering immigration officials to focus their efforts only on dangerous illegal immigrants and basically ignore everyone else.  Chris Crane, an ICE agent and president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a union for ICE employees, says "This directive puts ICE agents and officers in a horrible position.”   Crane says that because of the directive, even if they see a known illegal alien walking down the street they cannot arrest or detain him.  They must wait for the person to commit a crime and be arrested by local law enforcement before they can get involved.  Crane says the directive from Secretary Napolitano not only prevents ICE agents from performing their sworn duties but violates the Constitution by instructing the agents to ignore the laws as written.  “We are federal law enforcement officers who are being ordered to break the law," Crane emphasizes.

While many ICE agents are angry and frustrated over the administration's decision to selectively enforce immigration laws, some Democrat lawmakers believe the directives are helpful.  Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said the program actually helps ICE officials by allowing them to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants. "Deferred action is a major boost to law enforcement who do not have to waste time on honor students and can do the harder work of actually tracking down and deporting criminals," he said.

But why are there honor students who are here attending school illegally?  That’s the major question.  And why won't the administration listen to those in the field who are actually doing the job instead of legislating immigration policies from their cushy offices in Washington?  

Regardless of what this (or any other) administration does about people in the country illegally, nothing is going to change as long as the borders are open and it’s possible for illegal aliens to obtain jobs, welfare checks, food stamps, free cell phones, etc.  Our government says they want to fix the immigration problem but continues to enable the problem rather than find a solution.

Apparently the lawsuit hasn’t really had much effect to date.  According to Crane, ICE agents are still bound by Napolitano’s directives and are still being prevented from performing their jobs as written.  Hopefully one of those illegals who cannot be arrested until he commits a crime won’t decide that crime will be murder or sexual assault or some other violent crime that could have been prevented if not for Napolitano’s directives.  If that does happen maybe she should be charged as an accessory….   ?

Making The Sequester Hurt....

In response to the sequester, several federal agencies have begun furloughing employees because of budget cuts.  It’s not a new thing.  Furloughs of federal employees have occurred before during times of financial crisis.  It happened in the early 90s when Congress could not reach a budget agreement. 

What’s different this time is it seems these furloughs are being executed in areas that will cause the most pain and/or discomfort to the American people.  A good example is the Federal Aviation Administration’s furlough of air traffic controllers.

The FAA got more money in their fiscal year 2013 allocation than they requested.  When the sequester took effect they received 4% less than the amount they were intended to receive.  Reportedly that took them back to 2010 spending levels.  There have been hiring freezes in place for the federal government since 2010.  So how is it the FAA suddenly has to furlough air traffic controllers?

The FAA has 49,000 employees and contract employees.  This number includes just over 15,000 air traffic controllers.  Common sense would predict that contract employees and non-essential personnel would be furloughed first rather than essential staff.  The Justice department moved money around for law enforcement positions by moving money around.  Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both did the same things during the air traffic controllers’ strike in the 80s and the government shutdown in the 90s.  They both found ways to keep essential personnel, including air traffic controllers, working so as not to inconvenience people nationwide.  Apparently President Obama doesn’t feel the same way.

Prior to the sequester taking effect, Republican lawmakers passed two separate bills to fund the FAA and offered the President authority to designate sequester cuts as he wished. He refused.  Why is that, one would ask.  The answer is more simple than some people might imagine.  There is an election coming up in 2014 in which many Republicans in the House and Senate are up for re-election.  If the sequester is painful on the majority of Americans and the President can continue to blame Republicans for it, he can try to manipulate the vote and win majorities in both houses, giving him far more capabilities to further his agenda in his last two years in office.  With a majority in both houses he could also, presumably, get a bill passed that allowed for him to be elected to a third term in office – maybe even an indefinite term in office.   

Certainly some people won’t believe it unless it happens but it is not as far-fetched as it may seem.  Already a bill has been introduced by Democrats to change or repeal the 22^nd Amendment, making it possible for Obama to run again in 2016.  There is also a rumor that he would run as Hillary’s Vice Presidential candidate, which would not violate the 22^nd Amendment.  That amendment says “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”  It does not prevent a two-term elected President from being Vice President, nor does it preclude him from being President again if something should happen to the President.  So theoretically, Hillary could run using Obama to boost her votes and then, if something happened to her, Obama could be President again.  It sounds far-fetched…  but so did killing American citizens with drone strikes until recently.

Many people believe the administration is using air traffic controllers, White House tours, and other instances to make the sequester painful to further his causes.  Nothing surprises me these days so I won’t pretend it hasn’t occurred to me.  Time will tell.  But time will also tell if it was a good idea or a bad one.  It seems to me the American people are getting rather tired of being inconvenienced.  And despite the press releases from Jay Carney and the state run media – the American people also know there is only one person who signs a bill into law, and that’s the President.  And me thinks he doth protest too much….

Attorney General To Eliminate Punishment For Certain Crimes...

Speaking at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund Awards Gala on April 24th, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in remarks that largely have gone unnoticed, claimed that “creating a mechanism for illegal aliens to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows is a matter of civil and human rights.”

Mr. Holder said that the federal government will work hard “to safeguard the rights of language minorities.”

Holder also said, “It is long past time to reform our immigration system in a way that is fair; that guarantees that all are playing by the same rules…”

Really?  First of all, Mr. Attorney General, what is a "language minority"?  Is that the latest politically correct term for illegal aliens made up to detract from the fact that they are breaking our laws?  And where, in our Constitution or Bill of Rights, does it guarantee people the right to come here illegally and be given a pass for unlawful behavior?  If and when you can point that out to me I'll back you on this...  maybe. 

Another question...  Since you fail to make illegal immigrants follow our rules but insist that we all need to be "playing by the same rules", does that mean those of us who live here legally can break laws without punishment?  If it works for illegals and you want us all to play by the same rules then it only makes sense.  As the top law enforcement officer in the country, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (something you are blatantly failing to do), when will you issue the proclamation that legal citizens now have the right to violate the law without punishment? 

I realize that illegals enter the country “trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.”  But gee – some bank robbers and thieves do what they do for that very same reason.  So if entering the country illegally can go unpunished, shouldn’t non-violent bank robbers and thieves be able to “play by the same rules?”

There is no doubt that we need to reform our immigration policies in this country.  It has become a long, expensive and drawn-out process, made worse by more and more government red tape.  However, granting amnesty to people who have entered the country in violation of the laws we currently have is not the answer.  Why reward people for unlawful behavior?  It’s a slap in the face to those millions who have entered the country legally.

Three members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently wrote to the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, warning her of the harmful impact amnesty would have on the black community.  Amnesty “will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages when they do obtain employment,” the letter cautioned.  With unemployment among African-Americans already at record numbers – what part of this do Mr. Holder and President Obama not understand?

Any effective form of immigration reform must begin with securing the borders.  Otherwise we continue to have the problem – even if amnesty is granted to all illegals tomorrow.  Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegals and never secured the borders.  Look where we are today.  Duh.  How difficult is it to figure out, really?

Peter Kirsanow, an attorney and member of the commission, says Holder’s remarks represent “a bizarre understanding of – if not an insult to – the history of the civil rights movement in this country.”  Yet Holder’s speech emphasized his desire to legalize illegal aliens.  “Far too many people are relegated to living in the shadows – without the rights, dignity, and legal protections they deserve” claims Holder.

“Given their access to health care, home ownership, and jobs, the undocumented have not exactly been cowering in the shadows,” writes political scientist Peter Skerry.  He adds that illegals should “step forward and assume responsibility for their decisions.”

By the way – the term “language minority” was used in the Voting Rights Act to officially define “citizens who are of American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Native or Spanish heritage.”  Since people in this country illegally are not citizens, the term does not apply to them.  But many on the left are refusing to call these people what they really are and some want to make it a crime to say “illegal alien”.  What’s next – convicted criminals will have to be renamed “less fortunate opportunists”?  

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/holder-amnesty-is-a-civil-right/

Old Barns and Old People... And Old Hymns

I was sent this video, "Old Barns And Old People", via e-mail from my Uncle Phil yesterday.  Not only is it a great video with a wonderful message but the background music took me back to my childhood.  The song, “The Old Rugged Cross” is one you don’t hear much these days in the modern church.  These days, at least in my church, they’ll sing an old favorite hymn and then, in the middle, start singing different lyrics that aren’t part of the original song.  I know they do it to attract younger generations to their music and to make it more interesting and I can’t really fault them for it.  But once in a while I’d like them to sing the entire song, old style, the way I remember it.

Being the son of a Baptist pastor I grew up in the church and grew up on these old hymns.  (My Uncle Phil is also a retired Baptist pastor.)  “Holy, Holy, Holy”, “Rock of Ages”, “Amazing Grace”, “Blessed Assurance”, “What a Friend We Have in Jesus”, many, many more, and of course, “The Old Rugged Cross.”  These were songs I had memorized from the time I was old enough to sing along.  It struck me this morning as I was watching the video that I was singing the words in my head as the music was playing.  After 40 plus years I still remember these old songs and can sing along to most of them without the words in front of me.  I do it at our church as well – right up until the part where they add the new and unfamiliar lyrics. 

Don’t get me wrong….  like I said – I understand why they do it and I don’t begrudge them trying to make it more interesting and attract and keep more young people in the church.  Many young people today wouldn’t appreciate the old hymns for what they are – classic Christian songs of praise.  And in my youth we didn’t have orchestras in the sanctuary to liven things up.  We had a very talented organist who sometimes played the piano as well.  That was it.  No drums, no guitars, no brass.  And we were happy with it.  We sang Easter cantatas and Christmas concerts and they were all good. 

I must say I do enjoy the music at our church.  We have some very talented musicians and talented vocalists who lead the congregation in singing during two Sunday morning services.  Some of them perform alone or with one or two others during our call to prayer and while the offering is being taken.  And occasionally they have four pianists play together and it never fails to move me.  I have yet to leave the church on a Sunday morning disappointed with the music.  Even when they insert new words into a classic hymn I enjoy it – after I get over the fact that I had to stop singing because I know longer know what they’re singing!

There’s no real point to this post except that I found it pleasantly interesting that I still remember the words to so many of the hymns from my childhood.   Once again I have discovered something from my past that made a huge and lasting impression on my life.  I’m very grateful for my Christian upbringing and for the roots I still find that connect me to it.  And, as I have recently joined a church again for the first time in many years, I’m thankful those same roots led me home.

Turn your speakers on and read along.  You won't be sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8Ioa1gVVeA?showinfo=0&rel=0

Punished For Patriotism

Have we really come this far?  Is being patriotic and supporting our military wrong these days?

The 12-year-old daughter of a U.S. soldier deployed overseas was reportedly sent home from school by administrators for violating the dress code. Cejai Taylor wore a red t-shirt to honor her father, Sgt. James Taylor, and other service members.  It was part of a "Red Shirt Day" campaign that she hoped to start at the school.

The school said the shirt didn’t have a collar and therefore was not authorized by school policy.  Apparently children are prohibited from wearing t-shirts of any kind at the Kentucky middle school.  I guess it’s not a terrible thing – except for the fact that the school is Mahaffey Middle School, which is located on Fort Campbell Army Base!

Now, I have no problem with school dress codes and discipline.  I’d prefer my child attend a school with a dress code rather than a school where kids can wear anything they wish, including vulgar t-shirts or their pants down around their butt cheeks and showing their underwear.  So I can certainly understand and support the school having a policy to follow.  However, on a particular day, such as red shirt day, which is dedicated to showing honor and support to our troops, should there not be an exception allowed for a shirt that calls attention to supporting them, particularly on a military base?

It must be somewhat disappointing to a 12 year old, who was only trying to honor her father, to be told she was doing something wrong and be sent home to change her shirt.  Last week in West Virginia a 14 year old student was arrested following an argument with a teacher about a t-shirt he was wearing.  After going through the first five periods of school wearing a t-shirt with an NRA logo (and a picture of a gun on it) without incident, the boy was instructed by a teacher, during lunch, to remove the shirt or turn it inside out.  The student correctly told the teacher It was not in violation of any school policy or dress code and refused.  

According to the boy’s attorney, the teacher escalated the situation by raising his voice, causing the other students in the cafeteria to become loud and agitated.  Police were called and they too told the boy to remove the shirt or he’d be arrested.  The student reportedly put out his hands and said “Fine.”  He was taken to the police station and released 30 minutes later to his mother.  Formal charges have yet to be filed in that case.  Personally, I hope the parents sue the school and the police department for harassment.

MaHaffey Middle School has said they will review their dress code and possibly change it, or at least maybe allow exceptions such as this this in the future.  Let’s hope they do.  

Time To Ban Jeeps And Hummers!!

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, mainstream media and left-wing politicians are focusing once again on more gun control laws, pretending that more laws and increased background checks may have prevented what happened.  They even refer, trying to prove their point, to the fact that the two bombing suspects didn’t have licenses to own or carry firearms. 

Wait…  huh?

Just as in the case of the Newtown school shooting, the perpetrators of these crimes made illegal bombs and obtained their guns through illegal means.  So maybe one of these people who are screaming for more gun control and more background checks can explain to me how these proposed new laws would have prevented any of it from happening. 

Anti-gun zealots either don’t understand or refuse to understand the simple logic that people with criminal intent don’t often obey the laws we already have.  So without that understanding (or simply by ignoring the fact) they believe more and more laws will somehow cause criminals to conform.  I’m reminded of something I saw on the internet a couple of weeks ago…  “’If and when the government outlaws guns I will immediately turn mine in’ – said no criminal, ever.” 

President Obama and the Democrats, in response to gun violence in the last year or two, have decided that more laws and regulations directed against law-abiding citizens will keep crazy people and criminals from committing horrendous acts.  If they truly believe this they are embarrassingly naïve.  If they know the truth and want to pass the laws anyway they are dangerously deceptive and insidious. 

Many are trying to focus on the banning of “assault weapons” (semiautomatic rifles modeled after military weapons) saying there is “no need for military style weapons on our streets.”  This is a huge deception being perpetrated against the American people.  AR-15 rifles are no more dangerous than any other semiautomatic rifle.  They both shoot the same way – one bullet for every trigger pull.  The fact that they look like a military weapon only matters to people who are blinded by ignorance or stupidity.  Using that logic – Jeeps and Hummers should be banned from public streets because they were originally created for the military.  We certainly don’t want military vehicles on our streets.  At least – that’s what the President says.

The ban on military style weapons didn’t work to lower crime rates or gun violence in the 90s and it won’t work now.  Banning large capacity magazines will simply make evil people bent on gun violence to carry and load more magazines.  Not that big of a deal for someone with firearm experience.  And it’s already been well established (are you listening anti-gun zealots?) that criminals do not obey the gun laws anyway.  So how is taking guns away from law abiding citizens going to prevent gun violence?  Simple…  it isn’t.  Criminals are still going to have guns and the rest of the country will quickly turn into Chicago.  Chicago has more gun laws than anywhere else in the country yet they have the highest murder rate in the nation.  It’s working well, huh?

Mayor Bloomberg Is At It Again...

I haven't posted for several days so thought I'd go ahead and post this today as well.  Taken from an article I just read (attached).

Michael (Nanny Mayor) Bloomberg says the government will necessarily have to take away some more of your rights to keep you safe.  He doesn't want to do it, mind you, but it's necessary.

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

Of course New Yorkers know what it's like for someone to take away their freedoms.  Bloomberg has been doing it since he was elected.  He has banned trans-fats and salt in restaurants, smoking in public places, taxis that use regular gas, and narcotic pain medication from emergency rooms.  His failed policy to ban soft drinks larger than 16 ounces was thwarted by the court which called it “arbitrary and capricious, with too many loopholes and exemptions.”  Some would argue that Bloomberg's initiatives are good for the people and the environment but when a government begins making rules that take away the citizens' freedom of choice - where does it stop?  Thankfully there are still some judges in New York who have not been influenced by far left silliness.

Sometimes I think Mayor Bloomberg sits around in his office doing nothing but thinking up different ways to take things from the citizens of New York...

I can’t help but wonder where all of the protests are about Mayor Bloomberg taking away the rights of the people.  Just as with President Obama, the left screams about George W. Bush taking away their rights with the Patriot Act but says nothing about Obama taking away even more with the drone program, CIPRA, and his law that allows him to detain American citizens (and anyone else deemed by him to be assisting terrorists) indefinitely, without due process or legal counsel.  So where are the screams from the left?  Is it only a violation of your rights if a Republican does it?  It seems so.

Wake up America, and take a close look at what the liberal politicians, you know – the ones you elected to run things, are doing.  At least the right stands for freedom and individual liberties rather than a growing government nanny state.  Do you like your freedoms?  You might want to change sides…

http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/

Some Thoughts On Earth Day...

I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard some things about Earth Day that I just couldn’t bes listening to the radio yesterday and heard some things about Earth Day that I just couldn'lieve.  Yesterday was “Earth Day”, something that has been “celebrated” since 1970 and was, at least partially, conceived by hippie leader turned convicted murderer Ira Einhorn.  Things were simpler then.  The average price of a home was $26,600 and gas was at 36 cents a gallon.  And the Earth, while certainly having its share of pollution, was moving along as it always does.

Of course, the late 60s and early 70s were when the big environmental push came along.  People began wondering if the Earth could continue to sustain life if humans continued to pollute it.  I remember writing a term paper in 6^th or 7^th grade about air pollution and how terrible it was.  (I wasn’t an environmentalist by any means.  I just needed something to write about that was current.)  I don’t even remember what it said but I know that the research I did and the predictions made in the various articles I read never happened.  Thus the point of today’s post.

The following predictions were made by scientists and environmentalists on the first Earth Day in 1970.  They’re pretty wild.  Forty-three years later some people are still predicting gloom and doom for the Earth, from climate change to the end of civilization.  But air pollution, for the most part, has been reduced and the climate change people keep having to change their predictions.  (They started by saying we were headed toward another ice age, then changed that to global warming, and now have settled for “climate change” because it pretty much covers anything without being specific.  Ah, but don’t disbelieve it because you’ll be scorned by those who believe in the (ever contradicting) “science.”

Here are some of the amazing (and ridiculous) predictions made on Earth Day, 1970:

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."  — Harvard biologist George Wald

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich 

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

"[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

This is why I don’t get too worried about climate change, etc.  Scientists and environmentalists have been predicting gloom and doom for over 40 years and yet, the Earth goes on and has actually gotten better in many respects.  My prediction is that people will kill each other long before the Earth is incapable of sustaining life.  After all – God made the Earth and made it pretty self-sustaining, regardless of what people do to it.  Unless, of course, one day we blow it up.

President Obama Promises Answers....

On Friday night, following the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the youngest and only survivor of the two Boston Marathon bombers, President Obama gave an address to the people of the United States.  Among the other things he offered the President said “The families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers. The wounded, some of whom now have to learn how to stand and walk and live again, deserve answers.  And so I’ve instructed the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and our intelligence community to continue to deploy all the necessary resources to support the investigation, to collect intelligence, and to protect our citizens. We will determine what happened. We will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had. And we’ll continue to do whatever we have to do to keep our people safe.”

Really, Mr. President?  Really?  I agree with what you said but I can’t help but wonder – are the families of the victims of the Boston bombings more important than the families of those killed and wounded in Benghazi?  You made the same promise to the families of the Benghazi victims and yet you have given the American people absolutely zero answers to those questions in the seven months since the incident. In fact, you’ve managed to make the survivors, the witnesses to the carnage, disappear.  In addition, it seems the families of the victims have also disappeared.  How did you do that.  More importantly…  why?

The Benghazi victims’ families also deserve answers.  They deserve to know not only what actually happened but why your administration refused to send help.  They deserve the truth about why you kept repeating the mantra about the video being the cause of the attack when you knew it was a lie.  (And you should have known your lie would be uncovered.)  They deserve to know why your administration swept the incident under the rug as soon as possible and why your former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said “What difference does it make?”’  And why did John Kerry say we have more important things to worry about?  He was quick to condemn American troops in Vietnam but not so quick to identify failures of your administration.  Perfect for your administration.

And while we’re at it – the families of the victims of the Fort Hood shooting, carried out by an Islamic extremist in the name of Allah, deserve answers as to why your Attorney General dubbed it “workplace violence” instead of calling it what it was – a terrorist attack.  The fact that Nidal Hasan screamed “Allah Ackbar” as he began his slaughter of innocent people explained everything.  Yet you and Eric Holder not only called it workplace violence but denied the families of the victims wartime benefits for the loss of their loved ones.  I am ashamed of you for that, Mr. President.  And you should be ashamed of yourself.  Oh…  and you should fire Eric Holder.  He makes you look bad on a regular basis.  He made you look bad on the Fast and Furious incident.  He made you look bad on the New Black Panthers voter intimidation incident.  And he made you look bad on the Fort Hood shooting incident.  I must tell you – for a man who values his public image so much – you’re screwing up.  Eric Holder doesn’t have your best image at heart.  Just sayin’….

Mr. President – want to improve your public image?  Come clean about Benghazi and Fast and Furious and admit that Holder screwed up on the “workplace violence” declaration.  Then give the suffering families of the Boston terrorist attack the answers you say they deserve.  I have said more than once that I would respect you more if you demonstrated honesty and transparency.  So far you continue to refuse to do that.  But the longer it goes on, the less I’m surprised.

Everything Is A Conspiracy....!

I was listening to the radio in the car the other day and heard a couple of things that caused me to just shake my head.  Supposedly, there is a group out there who believed that because a black backpack was found at the scene of the Boston Marathon bombing, and because several people in the pictures were wearing black, and because Navy SEALs wear black and carry equipment in black backpacks, that the Navy SEALs were responsible for the bombing.

There is another group who believed the Boston Police Department was responsible for it and that they were impeding the FBI from proceeding with a thorough investigation.  Anyone who watched the news yesterday now knows that neither of those theories are true, and they’re actually rather silly.

Some conspiracy theorists believe the letters mailed to the President and the Mississippi Senator that contained ricin were also part of the Boston Marathon bombing incident.  Sean Hannity tried for two days to connect the two incidents, even though every expert he asked said it simply wasn’t true.  I like Hannity but he was getting annoying trying to connect things that had nothing in common.

Then, of course, the explosion happened at the West, Texas, fertilizer plant and there was another incident people were trying to connect to the Boston bombing and the ricin incidents.  As the different scenes played out and the investigations progressed, it turned out that the ricin laced letters had come from a nut in Mississippi, the Boston bombers were Chechnyan Muslims and none of them were related.  There are still some who believe the explosion was caused by a missile, based on a small fireball that can be seen on the left side of the video just before the massive explosion, but from what I see that fireball seems to be a small flare up or small explosion that triggers the larger one – similar to the theory of what happened to the space shuttle Challenger.

Conspiracy theorists can link anything to anything.  Some still believe 9/11 was an inside job and that a missile hit the pentagon rather than a plane.  They believe the secondary buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were imploded with explosives – even though there is no way it could have happened without someone seeing the buildings being wired.  There are simply too many people that would have to be kept quiet.  And in this day and age, I personally don’t believe that’s possible.

All that being said – there are other incidents that seem to scream of government conspiracy.  There are at least 30 witnesses from the Benghazi incident that have still not surfaced and so far, to the best of my knowledge, no family members of those witnesses have spoken out either.  How much power and deceit must it take to cause that many people to remain quiet and out of sight even as at least half the country wants to find them?  I guess some of the conspiracy theorists might have a point.

Conspiracy theories seem to have increased in number in the last 20 years or so.  Some of them seem to have merit and others seem completely ridiculous.  I have no doubt some of them are accurate.  And we will probably never know the truth about most of them, except those that are completely unbelievable.  I have no doubt the government hides and covers up many thing and keeps them hidden from the public.  I still don’t believe they are involved in everything but I might be surprised at the truth. 

Glenn Beck has stated he has evidence that the Boston bombings were an inside job by the federal government and, if the President doesn’t admit it by Monday, he’ll make the evidence public.  Some people believe Beck is simply a loud mouthed nut.  I personally have never seen Beck make any statements without evidence to back it up.  So it will be interesting.  I would caution Beck, however.  When Andrew Breitbart threatened to go public with information damaging to the Obama administration he died very suddenly.  Watch your back, Glenn.  You never know who else is watching it…

Right Leaning Politics Does Not Make You A Mass Murderer...

Just hours after the bombings in Boston on Monday, liberal pundits on CNN and MSNBC were insinuating (and even hoping) that the bombers were white Americans connected to the Tea Party or other right-wing political groups.  Indeed, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews were all but blaming the Tea Party and telling people that the bombings, particularly pressure cooker bombs, were somewhat typical of right-wing extremists.  It’s interesting how their first assumption is that the perpetrators of violence in this country are right-wing extremists when over and over again they’ve been proven wrong.

Wolf, Chris, and others who think like you – I’d like to give you a few facts that you might want to consider before the next time you blame the right for something without any evidence whatsoever:

The Newtown, Connecticut, shooter – Adam Lanza – was a registered Democrat.

The Aurora, Colorado, shooter – James Holmes – is a registered Democrat who worked for the Obama campaign and participated in the Occupy Wall Street protests.

The perpetrator of the Fort Hood “workplace violence” shootings – Nadal Hassan – is a registered Democrat and a Muslim.

The Virginia Tech shooter - Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean citizen with U.S. permanent resident status – had sent hate mail to President George W. Bush and wrote a manifesto in which he expressed his hatred of the wealthy and his fear of the “prospect of being turned out into the world of work, finances, and responsibilities.”  Hardly the actions or philosophy of someone on the right.

Jared Laughner, the man who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 17 others in Tucson in January, 2011, had widely diverse political views – some from the right and some from the left.  However, what’s important in his case is that before the blood was even cleaned from the sidewalk outside that store in Tucson, liberal pundits were already labeling him a right-wing radical who was influenced by people like Sarah Palin – a notion that was absolutely false and unsupported.  Yet they blamed the right for Loughner’s actions until they finally had to stop because the evidence showed how ridiculous their statements were.

The Columbine shooters - Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – were too young to vote but their parents are all registered Democrats.  (In Colorado why would they be anything else?)

Although a registered Republican, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh transformed into a government hating, Islam sympathizer somewhere between high school and his return from Iraq.  Beneath his clean-cut persona, he harbored a warped sense of empathy for Osama bin Laden, the first World Trade Center mastermind Ramzi Yousef, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. During his incarceration, McVeigh penned personal essays unveiling his deep-seated sympathies for Middle Eastern terrorists that fueled his anti-government zealotry.  He unabashedly expressed regret for the killing two Iraqi enemy combatants, for which he earned the Bronze Star.  Hardly the feelings and beliefs of a conservative American.

There are many who would classify Ted Kaczynski as a right-wing radical however, like Jared Loughner, Kaczynski’s views were diverse and quite conflicting.  He abhorred big government and civilization (large cities) and believed that industry and technology were killing the planet, not only the environment but people themselves.  He was associated with the Green Anarchists for a while, a left-wing organization by nature, then eventually decided they had been too much influenced by radical leftists to be effective.

The point is, contrary to the statements of extreme left-wing pundits (and their followers), being a Republican doesn’t make you a mass murderer any more than being a Democrat does.  Being mentally unstable makes you a murderer of innocent people.  Even if you’re killing in the name of Allah and Islam, when you kill innocent people, including children, there’s something wrong with you.  Eric Rudolph killed people in an attempt to stop abortions and believed he was doing God’s will.  But our God would never condone murdering innocent people – regardless of the stated cause.  Rudolph is mentally unstable, just like Kaczynski, Loughner, Harris and Klebold, McVeigh, Cho, Hassan, Holmes and Lanza.  And the two Boston bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who turned out to be Chechnyan Muslims.  Sorry, Wolf.  Sorry, Chris.  Hate it for ya.

I have yet to hear conservative pundits blame left-wing radicals for acts of violence without any evidence to back it up.  Responsible journalism doesn't allow such unsubstantiated conclusions and accusations.  I suppose those liberal pundits have their reasons for making such assumptions but they make themselves look ridiculous and petty in the long run.

“I have noticed that the people who try hardest to impose moral code on others (not in self-defense) are often the least careful to abide by that moral code themselves.”  - Ted Kaczynski

Law Enforcement With A Sense Of Humor...

I love it when I can post something that I don't have to spend time thinking about.  I didn't write this post.  I read it on Facebook and I can't even verify it as true.  But even if it isn't, it should be.  It was allegedly written by a Sergeant Bennett of the Chula Vista, California, police department.  It's a humorous response to a letter from an unhappy citizen.  As I said - I hope the letter is true and valid.  I also hope the good Sergeant doesn't get into any trouble for writing it...


Recently, the Chula Vista, California Police Department ran an e-mail forum (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being, "Community Policing." One of the civilian e-mail participants posed the following question, "I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?" 

From the "other side" (the law enforcement side) Sgt. Bennett, obviously a cop with a sense of humor replied: 

"First of all, let me tell you this...it's not easy. In Chula Vista, we average one cop for every 600 people. Only about 60% of those cops are on general duty (or what you might refer to as "patrol") where we do most of our harassing. The rest are in non-harassing departments that do not allow them contact with the day to day innocents. At any given moment, only one-fifth of the 60% patrollers are on duty and available for harassing people while the rest are off duty. So roughly, one cop is responsible for harassing about 5,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 10,000 or more people a day. 

Now, your average ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds long. This gives a cop one second to harass a person, and then only three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. To be honest, most cops are not up to this challenge day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those people which we can realistically harass. 

The tools available to us are as follows: 

PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase used often. This means we'll come out and give somebody some special harassment. 

Another popular one: "There's a guy breaking into a house." The harassment team is then put into action. 

CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars with no insurance or no driver's licenses and the like. It's lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, they are drunk, or have an outstanding warrant on file. 

RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours. 

STATUTES: When we don't have PHONES or CARS and have nothing better to do, there are actually books that give us ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Statutes"; Criminal Codes, Motor Vehicle Codes, etc...They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the statute, you can just drive around for awhile until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy trying to steal a car. Well, there's this book we have that says that's not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It's a really cool system that we've set up, and it works pretty well. We seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it. Why? Because for the good citizens who pay the tab, we try to keep the streets safe for them, and they pay us to "harass" some people. 

Next time you are in my town, give me the old "single finger wave." That's another one of those codes. It means, "You can't harass me." It's one of our favorites.

The Boston Bombing... A Follow Up

Last night I posted about the horrific bombing of innocent people in Boston during the marathon and I feel the need to clarify a few things today.  Someone said the bombing was not political and that the victims were the important thing over all.  While I can’t agree that the bombing itself wasn’t political (since they all are political in one way or another) I now understand that first and foremost I should have talked about the victims.

My heart goes out to the victims, the families, the witnesses and even to the organizers of the Boston Marathon, which has certainly been changed forever.  No one at either of those scenes will ever be the same again.  Those who were injured, some devastatingly, will now have to live with the consequences of those injuries, as will their families.  I saw one picture of a man who lost both legs (and was conscious) that tore at my heart.  Being a former paramedic I’ve seen some pretty gruesome things but the picture of that man looking at what used to be his legs…  I simply cannot imagine how he was able to cope. 

The witnesses who describe seeing limbs and body parts flying past them will also never be the same.  How could one witness that and ever forget it?  They now have at least an inkling of what it must be like to be in a war zone.  It’s a sight they’ll dream about and re-live more than once, I’m sure.  It’s called “terrorism” for a reason.

I have one friend who often runs in this race who was unable to make it this year.  I have another who has begun running marathons and will probably end up running the Boston sometime in the future.  Both of them crossed my mind last night – not that they’re any more important than those poor victims yesterday but because they’re important to me and either of them could have been involved given different circumstances.

I won’t apologize for my post last night.  The entire point of it was to ask what the President is going to do about this attack on Americans on American soil.  He doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to these attacks.  He called the one at Fort Hood “domestic violence” even though Major Hassan was in direct contact with Anwar Al Awlaki and screamed “Allahu Akbar!” before beginning his murderous spree that claimed 13 American lives. 

The President has been evasive, elusive and he and his staff have blatantly lied about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which claimed four lives, including that of our Libyan ambassador.  It’s been over seven months and we have no more solid answers than we did in the first few weeks.  It’s shameful behavior coming from the White House.

So my post last night stands as is – what are you going to do, Mr. President?  The bombing wasn’t your fault and I won’t entertain the idea that it was.  But it was terrorism, plain and simple.  It doesn’t matter if it’s domestic terrorism (apparently MSNBC pundits have stated is their wish - which is a topic for another blog post), or foreign terrorism.  Both must be identified, correctly labeled and dealt with.  There is no Presidential campaign going on right now that needs to be protected from the truth.  Get the answers, tell the American people the truth, and dispense justice.  That’s all we want.

I do apologize to any and all who may have thought I cared more about the politics of the incident than about the victims.  That is definitely not the case.  No one should have to experience what happened yesterday.  Intentionally blowing up innocent people for religious and/or political reasons is unconscionable and unacceptable and those who perpetrate it should be found, convicted and executed.  Anyone who is capable of doing something like that is certainly capable of doing it again and again.  I say take them out, permanently.

May God be with the victims, their families and friends, and the innocent witnesses whose lives have changed forever.  A special thank you to those who ran to the scene to volunteer their assistance in helping the victims.  And thank you, of course, to the EMS services, not only from Boston but from the surrounding areas, who worked tirelessly to care for all of the victims and save the ones they could.  God bless you all.

Wonder What He'll Call This Attack....?

Once again our nation has been attacked.  This time it was an attack against innocent people watching the Boston Marathon.  Cowardly bombers (not even suicide bombers this time) detonated homemade explosive devices in crowds of onlookers, killing at least two and injuring at least a hundred others.  How horrible it must be to live your life with the desire and intent to hurt or kill innocent people.

The police are looking at a Saudi national as a person of interest.  My guess, and it’s simply a guess, is that this Saudi national is not a Christian.  I won’t speculate on what his religious beliefs are because I think most of us can decipher that for ourselves.  And I don’t think, regardless of what some of my more liberal acquaintances might say, that I’m being racist or bigoted when I say his religious beliefs, if verified, won’t surprise me.  I don’t know too many Christians who go around blowing people up or murdering people.  Sure – there are a few who claim to be Christians, such as Eric Rudolph or James Kopp, but they are the exception rather than the rule.  Acts of terrorism by that unnamed religious group happens nearly every day, somewhere in the world.  There’s a difference.

The act of blowing up innocent people in the name of hatred is cowardly – at least for those who order it done.  There is nothing cowardly about strapping a bomb to your own body and detonating it while still wearing it.  I doubt anyone reading these words would have the courage and conviction to carry out an act like that.  But to order someone else to do it, or to order that bombs be placed in strategic locations with the intent of killing or maiming as many innocent people as possible, is the act of a coward.  Osama Bin Laden was a coward.  He ordered the murders of thousands of innocent people, all the while hiding out to avoid being held responsible for his actions.

Islamic jihadists have the intent, for whatever reason, to kill as many non-believers of Islam as possible, with the promised reward of 72 virgins in their afterlife (among other things).  They take their responsibility seriously.  And killing seems to be something they do well.

Whether it was an Islamic terrorist attack or a domestic attack, I do hope the President will call it what it is.  So far he has said it’s “a tragic event”.  And if it turns out to be an act of Islamic jihad – and the President refuses to call it what it is, he needs to resign because it will be obvious he no longer has the best interest of the American people at heart.  (The last terrorist attack on American soil during Obama’s watch was the Fort Hood shootings, which Obama and Holder deemed “workplace violence.”  Obama shouldn’t have survived the publicity on that one but the main stream media protect him at all costs.)

One of my friends today posted a picture of the back window of an SUV.  On the window someone had written “When Al Qaeda hits us again remember – the DHS was watching me.”  That sounds about right.  Janet Napolitano says our borders are secure and the President says Al Qaeda has been diminished.  Oops.  I guess someone might be mistaken.  Of course, it certainly won’t surprise me if the Obama administration and Big Sis Napolitano come up with some minimizing description of the event that doesn’t acknowledge what it truly was.  That’s how they roll.  Lie to the people at all costs to protect their reputation.  And sadly, many Americans buy it.

Tolerance

Myriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “tolerance” as follows:

tol·er·ance noun \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\

1: capacity to endure pain or hardship: endurance, fortitude, stamina

2a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.  b: the act of allowing something: toleration

Notice there is nothing in the definition that says you must agree with the beliefs or practices that are different from yours?  Some people just don’t understand that part.

There are certain groups of people in this country that scream and demand tolerance for anything and everything they want or believe, yet they cannot tolerate people who disagree with their beliefs.  These people think anyone who disagrees with them should be chastised, vilified and ridiculed.  It’s obvious people like that don’t understand the definition of their favorite word.

People who demand tolerance without demonstrating it usually have a second favorite word or expression they use against those who disagree with them.  The root word is “hate.”  Rather than practice tolerance themselves, these people accuse those who disagree of practicing hatred.  Again – it comes from a lack of understanding of the word “tolerance”, whether it be deliberate or not. 

The other word(s) commonly used by these people is “bigot” or “racist”.  If someone disagrees with a particular practice – let’s say gay marriage since it’s in the news so much today – those demanding tolerance cry “hater” or “bigot” or “homophobe” – without once being “tolerant” of the beliefs of others and their right to disagree.  They don’t care what the stated reasons are.  They only care that someone dares to disagree with them and their vile intolerance begins to show.  And the same words fly if someone voices their distrust of Muslims – even given the current situation in the world.

In like fashion it has become all too easy for them to cry “racist” if one disagrees with the President, again - regardless of the reasons stated for the disagreement.  Somehow, some people believe that conservatives should all embrace the Obama Presidency and agree with everything he does.  And if that doesn’t happen they label those who disagree with the “R” word.  But how ridiculous is that?  One must wonder if Herman Cain had somehow won the election and was running the country with a conservative administration, would those who opposed his policies consider themselves racist?  I doubt it.

Let’s look at the definition of “tolerance” again:   Sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

In other words – allowing or accepting beliefs or practices that differ from or conflict with one’s own.  The examples I posted above aren’t going to go away soon.  I foresee a future in the United States where gay marriage will be allowed nationwide in the name of civil rights.  And those who oppose it, for whatever reason, will be forced to tolerate it because it will be the law of the land.  For the most part they already do tolerate it.  If not, the instances of hate crimes against homosexual people would be far higher than they are and would probably be on the rise given that some states have already legalized their marriage.  So it seems that people are “tolerant” of it already.  There is no clause of silence in the definition of tolerance.  So there is no reason people should stop voicing their opinions, pro or con, of any practice or belief.  And they should be able to do just that in a peaceful and respectful manner. 

“Tolerance” has to apply to both sides.  If one side is demanding tolerance for their beliefs and practices then the other side has the right to demand the same thing.  Bottom line – if people cannot expect tolerance from you they’re less likely to afford it to you.  Just sayin….

It's Good To Be The King!

Once again the actions of our President have caused me to feel contempt and disgust for him. Some of you are thinking “So what’s new?  You hate him anyway!” but that’s far from the truth.  I don’t care for him, his policies, and particularly some of his actions but I don’t hate him.  He’s a liberal politician and I oppose nearly everything he stands for, sure.  But there are specific things he does that invite my contempt, as it should invite everyone’s – even his fans.

On March 1^st, the sequester went into effect because our elected officials couldn’t reach a budget deal.  The President spent the weeks leading up to that date vilifying the Republicans and blaming them entirely for the sequester.  He conveniently left out the fact that he himself signed it into law.  Funny how that works.  He traveled around the country in campaign mode telling us all how America would fall into immediate crisis on March 1^st because of the sequester cuts that would kick in.  Police, firefighters and teachers would lose their jobs.  Federal law enforcement agents would be laid off and our national security would be diminished.  Jobs would be lost all across the country and seniors would no longer receive medical care.  And it was all the fault of the Republicans.

Problem is – it was mostly lies to appease his base.  After several days when none of those things happened in large numbers (federal law enforcement agencies moved money around and prevented it – imagine…) the President went back on TV and said “We can work through this” as though it was no big deal.  Of course, his followers still tout his earlier words and still blame the Republicans instead of the man who made it law.  Blind faith is frightening.

The President oftentimes has a problem with telling the truth.  He’s on another campaign this week spreading lies about how most people in the country want increased gun control laws because of the Newtown school shootings.  The polls clearly show that the majority does not want all of the increased laws designed to restrict the rights of legal, law-abiding gun owners but the President insists that the majority of Americans agree with him.  And the main stream media backs him 100%, even while admitting that the new proposed laws would have done nothing to prevent what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School.  (Joe Biden tells the same lies on a regular basis.)

One of the things that irritates me the most about Barack Obama is his unending pursuit of opulence in everything he does, despite the current economic status of average Americans.  Last night’s big White House concert was a perfect example.  The President loves to spend time with celebrities and entertain them in the White House at the taxpayers’ expense.  Last night’s concert, which was done simply for the Obamas’ entertainment, cost the taxpayers plenty.  We just don't know how much.

This is not the first time the President has rubbed his status in the faces of the American people.  A couple of years ago the President went on TV and said that due to the economic crisis many Americans would have to “tighten their belts and maybe not take that vacation.”  Two days later he and his family went to Hawaii for a multi-million dollar vacation.  It was (and still is today) the perfect example of the phrase “Do as I say not as I do.”

I understand that the President of the United States needs to take a break from time to time and relax a little.  I don’t necessarily begrudge him that.  However, this President can’t seem to take a vacation without making it lavish.  He has taken four short vacations this year already – one per month.  And in March he sent Michelle and the girls to Aspen while he went to Florida to play golf with Tiger Woods.  And it's not the first time the Obamas have gone to the same place on separate planes.  And while we’ll never know the exact cost to the taxpayers for these lavish vacations and/or separate flights, we do know that Joe Biden recently took a trip to England and France and racked up hotel bills (for two nights) of over $1 million.  Clearly the Obama administration is projecting the attitude of “Let them eat cake.”

Obama supporters (and other Bush haters) like to say that George W. Bush took far more vacations than President Obama.  That remains to be seen – Obama is still in office – but George W. Bush spent nearly all of his vacations at his ranch here in Texas, relaxing by clearing brush and driving around the ranch.  (Interestingly, Ronald Reagan enjoyed doing the same thing.)  I don’t remember a single incident when Bush and Laura took separate vacations, doubling the cost of security, flight costs, etc.  In fact, even lodging costs were minimized since the Secret Service and any guests of the President stayed on the ranch. 

There is a huge difference between the way President Bush conducted himself in the public eye and the way President Obama does.  At the risk of using too many clichés in one post – to the public President Obama projects the attitude of “It’s good to be the king.”  And for the life of me I can’t understand why his followers, particularly those in financial crisis at the moment, put up with it.

The sequestration budget cuts may have halted public tours of the White House but they didn’t stop President Obama from partying the night away at a celebrity-filled private concert in the executive mansion last night, with taxpayers footing part of the bill.  Last night’s event — featuring a large makeshift stage in the White House’s East Room — was dedicated to Memphis soul music.

Once again – he’s not the first President to host parties like this nor do I begrudge him doing it – except that I would bet he spent enough money on that party last night to open White House tours for at least a week, probably two or three.  The President just has his priorities wrong.  Instead of his priority being the well-being of the nation it seems to be the well-being of his celebrity status. 

With the economy in the condition it’s in, how can he justify sending billions of dollars to countries that hate us and spending millions on lavish vacations, parties and concerts?  And how can his supporters, many of whom are suffering financially because of the poor economy and yes – even because of the sequester – continue to turn a blind eye to such blatant narcissistic behavior?