Toddler Accidentally Shoots Mother - Liberals blame NRA

In a tragedy beyond measure in Idaho on Tuesday, a mother shopping in Walmart with her 2 year old was accidentally shot and killed by the boy.

Veronica Rutledge, a research scientist in Blackfoot, Idaho, was shopping with her son, Hayden. Although some details are not known, what is known is that the boy got his hands on a loaded gun that he found in his mother's purse and pulled the trigger, striking the woman, who died from the wound.

Many liberals took to Twitter to blame the NRA - as if the NRA had anything to do with it.

"Guns don't kill people ... 2 year olds do. Is that your argument @NRA, #GunNutters, #tcot

#momsdemand and others want real gun reforms now,"

"I repeat: Guns are simple. Point. Click. Simple. So simple a 2 y/o can kill mommy with it. A bloody tragedy, thanks to the #NRA," 

"NRA going to need damage control"

Veronica Rutledge was a bright young woman with a degree in chemistry. She worked at Battelle’s Idaho National Laboratory and had published several articles. According to her father, Veronica loved guns and being outdoors. She was trained with guns and loved to shoot. She carried a gun with her everywhere she went. For Christmas her husband bought her a new purse - one with a special zippered compartment for her gun.

On Tuesday of last week Veronica took her three nieces and her son to Walmart. She had her gun with her in her new purse. At some point during her shopping she left her purse in her shopping cart unattended - along with her 2 year old. Being a typical toddler, the boy somehow found the gun in the purse and was able to get it out of the special pocket. He pointed it at his mother and pulled the trigger, striking her in the head.

This incident was a tragedy of unspeakable depth. I feel for everyone involved. The husband has to feel guilty because he bought the purse in which the gun was kept. The child will grow up knowing that he caused the death of his own mother. What a tragic way to go through life.

Let's be real. It's true this woman would still be alive if she did not have a gun with her on that day. However, the Constitution (not the NRA) affords all Americans the right to keep firearms and since she was legally allowed to carry concealed, she was within her rights according to the law. 

The gun, while being the tool that delivered the fatal blow, was not at fault. It did not go off by itself. In fact, I've never read once about a gun that was sitting untouched by human hands that went off and shot someone. It doesn't happen. Likewise - the NRA had nothing to do with it either. The NRA protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms - something Veronica Rutledge enjoyed. 

Many people are killed each year with knives or other cutting objects. In Oklahoma earlier this year a woman was beheaded at her workplace by a man with a knife. (He was stopped by a man with a legal firearm.) Why has there not been a demand to outlaw knives? People use blunt objects, such as hammers, to kill people. Yet hammers are still in the stores and I hear no one demanding they be outlawed. Drunk drivers kill an average of 30 people per day (far more than guns) on our streets and highways yet I have heard not one demand to outlaw cars and alcohol. The people demanding guns be banned are nothing more than hypocrites - selectively choosing which "dangerous items" should be banned based on their own liberal bias.

As cold as it sounds there is only one person responsible for Veronica Rutledge's death and that person is Veronica Rutledge. In a momentary lapse of judgement she turned away from her purse, apparently thinking her gun was safe and secure in that pocket. She perhaps also momentarily forgot the inquisitiveness and determination of a two year old. The boy got his hands on the gun because she left it there for him to acquire. It't not pretty but it really is that simple. 

For those who still want to pretend that guns kill people without help - please stop driving. Your car is more dangerous to the general public than a gun on any given day. If you're going to begin outlawing dangerous things start with the most dangerous.

In 2013, over 35,200 people were killed in automobile accidents. That's compared to 11,400 people killed by firearms. The number of automobile deaths was over 3 times that of firearms. Do those killed in and by automobiles not matter? Where is your outrage?

One cannot help but wonder if firearms in this country are ever outlawed what the next thing will be that liberals want banned. For the record - let's see who those demanding the outlawing of all guns would be associated with:

Adolph Hitler 

Mau Tse Tung

Pol Pot

Joseph Stalin

Get the picture? Nah - probably not.

The Serenity Prayer

There is a prayer that's known by most Christians around the world - at least the first sentence. It has been entitled "The Serenity Prayer" and is often repeated by people worldwide. That same sentence is used in most group addiction treatment programs. You know the one...

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Yesterday morning I was listening to our pastor talking about joy - about finding and maintaining joy in your life regardless of the other things that are going on. He referred to the apostle Paul's letter to the Philippians in which Paul talks about the joy in Christ no matter what is happening in your life. For some reason during the sermon I thought of The Serenity Prayer. A few minutes later Dr. Marr brought it up.

He read the first sentence, the one with which everyone is familiar, then asked if we knew the rest of it. I had never really paid attention to the fact that there is a "rest of it" so this was new to me.

The prayer is credited to American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who is believed to have first penned it in the early 1930s. His final version of the prayer, which appeared in 1951, had been modified a bit and contained different phrasing, asking God for "grace to accept with serenity," which was not in the original version.


God, give me grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed,

Courage to change the things which should be changed,

and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other;

Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time,

Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,

Taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,

Not as I would have it;

Trusting that You will make all things right if I surrender to Your will,

So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,

And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

It's a simple prayer yet very profound - even in its abbreviated version.

The word serenity means a state of being calm, peaceful, or tranquil; unruffled. So in the first sentence of the pray one is asking for God to keep them calm and unruffled in the face of things that cannot be changed, no matter how difficult or frustrating it might be. That's a pretty big request.

In the second part you're asking God to give you the courage (and  I would imagine) to change the things that can and should be changed. Making changes can be a difficult thing to do - regardless of how bad the need is. Change is often uncomfortable - for others as well as the one(s) making the changes. Not everyone will agree that the changes need to be made, which can ruffle feathers and cause discomfort and even anger. It's another quite large request.

And the third request is for the wisdom to know the difference between things that cannot be changed and things that can and should be. It's tough when you want something to be changed and spend time trying only to discover it's not within your capability. You waste time and emotion. If you trust God to guide you through your life then you know that He will help you discern what you should and should not spend your time on. 

The rest of the prayer, while not often repeated, is just as poignant as the first sentence. Maybe more so.

Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time,

Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace...

Keep in mind this is a request of God - to give us the grace and serenity to live one day at a time, enjoying the little things and understanding that all struggle leads to inner peace and happiness if we trust Him.

Taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,

Not as I would have it;

Jesus lived His perfect life even in the face of sin and evil. And while none of us can live that perfect life, we can strive to be like Him and live through God's grace and love. Just as Jesus changed the things and people He could while He was here on Earth, so we can strive to do the same things. We cannot have the world as we want it - that's just not going to happen. But we can make it better through God's love and grace.

Trusting that You will make all things right if I surrender to Your will,

So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,

And supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen

Talk about joy. All we have to do is trust Him and let Him guide our lives. In return He will make our lives better and lead us to happiness. He won't take away every problem but He will help us through the ones we have. As Paul said in Philippians 4:13: "In Christ all things are possible."

In John 14, Jesus told his disciples "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. 

How much more happy could one be than to be in Heaven with our Savior in the next life? It is promised and the bill has already been pre-paid. One must only accept and believe. Can you say "Amen?"

Obama: It’s Not Going To Be A Source Of Terrorist Attacks Again"

Just a week before the United States is set to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, President Obama is making bold predictions.

Speaking to U.S. military members in Hawaii on Christmas Day the President said “We’ve been in continuous war now for over 13 years. Next week we will be ending our combat mission in Afghanistan.

Because of the extraordinary service of the men and women in the armed forces, Afghanistan has a chance to rebuild its own country,” he said. “We are safer. It’s not going to be a source of terrorist attacks again.”

What he said about the extraordinary service of the men and women of the armed forces I wholeheartedly agree with. Those who serve are exceptional.

I'm sure you're all like me and welcome this news from our Commander-in-Chief. Knowing that Afghanistan has been cleansed of terrorists means we don't have to worry about that country anymore. And we know we can believe this great news because we accomplished the same thing so well when we pulled out of Iraq.

The President continued: “We still have some very difficult missions around the world, including in Iraq. We still have folks in Afghanistan helping the Afghan security forces. We have people helping to deal with Ebola in Africa and obviously we have folks stationed all around the world. But the world is better, it’s safer, it’s more peaceful, It’s more prosperous and our homeland is protected because of you and the sacrifices each and every day.”

President Obama truly believes the American people are stupid and personally I resent it very much. The world is safer and more peaceful? Which part would that be, Mr. President?

We have all watched ISIS systematically take over large sections of Iraq and Syria in the last year. We've watched as they have taken over cities and killed anyone who didn't believe as they do. We've watched as they behead women, children, and Americans that are being held captive in those countries.

We've watched Muslim terrorists kidnap young girls and sell them as wives and sex slaves. We've seen pictures and videos of Muslim men marrying 9 and 10 year old girls in group ceremonies.

We've listened to the President tell us that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria "is not Islamic" because "no religion condones the killing of innocents," even though the Quran commands believers to do just that. We've listened to him say that "Islam is a religion of peace," even as Muslim lone wolf assassins are attacking, injuring, and killing American citizens and police right here in the United States.

We saw the Attorney General turn domestic, Islamic terrorist acts into "workplace violence" incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Moore, Oklahoma. In fact - we watch on a regular basis as the President of the United States defends Islam while claiming himself to be a Christian yet saying nothing about the continued slaughter of Christians in other parts of the world.

President Obama likes to tell the world that the United States is "not a Christian nation." But gee - it was until he took office six years ago. Since that time he has done everything he can to alienate Israel and has had very little to say about the mass slaughter of Christians at the hands of Muslims. I can't imagine another American President praising Muslims while watching Christians die.

Of course, I've never in my lifetime witnessed a President give the enemy the date of our troop withdrawal at the beginning of a hostile military operation. Did Obama not learn anything from Iraq or does he simply not care? I guess since he has declared Afghanistan a terrorist free zone he's not concerned about the future after we leave. He should be. If 14 years of military action and thousands of dead American service members get tossed in the toilet again (if the Taliban and/or ISIS takes over Afghanistan) Obama's support from military members will dwindle to nothing. Frankly, I can't understand why he has any military support as it is.

I guess I'll wait and see if he's as good as he believes he is. So far he hasn't lived up to his own hype. At least not in reality. In the mind of a narcissist truth doesn't matter - only his perception.

Does Everything Have To Be Racist Today?

Parker Molloy, a "well known essayist" (of whom I personally have never heard) created a stir this past week when she criticized the very popular classic TV movie "A Christmas Story" - the story of Ralphie, who wants only one thing for Christmas - "an official Red Ryder carbine action 200-shot range model air rifle."

The movie, set in the early 1940s, is the story of 9 year old Ralphie and his family at Christmas time in small town Indiana. Ralphie wants his BB gun for Christmas and nothing else. He talks about it to anyone who will listen and even writes a short essay for school about his desired present.

Ralphie's mother, his teacher, and even the local department store Santa all tell him the same thing - "You'll shoot your eye out."

Eventually Christmas comes and Ralphie gets the surprise of his life when his dad, at the very end of their present-opening session on Christmas morning, tells Ralphie to check for one last present behind the bookcase. It's his much desired "official Red Ryder carbine action 200-shot range model air rifle."

It just so happens that Ralphie and his family are white.

Fast forward to 2014. Ms. Molloy posted on Twitter earlier this week to say that "A Christmas Story" is an example of "institutional racism" and "white privilege." She comes to this conclusion because in this fictional story that was created in 1983 about the 1940s, no one warns Ralphie that he could be shot by police for playing with a toy gun. She claims that the movie paints a picture of the reality for white children versus the reality of black children. Except that's not the case at all.

Molloy contrasts fictional Ralphie not getting shot for playing with his BB gun (which he did in his fenced back yard and not in a public park) to the shooting of Tamir Rice, the black 12 year old shot by police in a park in Cleveland while playing with a very real looking toy handgun.

The sheer ridiculousness of Ms. Molloy's comparison would have me laughing if it wasn't so pathetic. First of all, the 1940s was a different time. Racism was alive and well, particularly in the deep South, but there were far less people in the country, lower crime rates, more people of faith, fewer gangs and criminal organizations, and less street violence. A kid (black or white) on the street or in his front yard with a BB gun in those days didn't automatically instill a wariness and/or fear in a police officer. Cops and citizens had a good relationship for the most part. And yes, I know there were race related difficulties between cops and blacks in the 1940s as well. Those problems have been there since the beginning of policing in the USA. People are people. Some are better than others. That's just a simple fact.

Another difference between then and now is the media, television and the internet. These days if a cop does something that the main stream media, social media, or an elected official can use for sensationalism that incident, whatever it was, will be made public worldwide to push an agenda - even if what's being said is not true. They tell negative partial truths and even lies (hands up - don't shoot) to further push their own ideas on the public.

When's the last time you saw a news outlet carrying a story for three days or five days about a cop who did a good deed and helped someone out? Stories like that don't make big headline and bring in advertising dollars. They are, therefore, largely ignored.

Recently in Saint Louis an armed suspect in a gas station pointed a gun at a police officer who, responding to the threat, shot and killed the suspect. Regardless of the truth, some bystanders in that racially charged city began saying that the cop executed the man and began more protesting. Truth doesn't matter to those with an agenda.

Anyway, back to Ms. Molloy and "A Christmas Story." It seems the legacy of 2014 will be that in the latter part of the year people on the left began turning everything into a racial issue. Al Sharpton keeps getting richer. Eric Holder continues his racial activism (admitted) as Attorney General. Barack Obama continues to weigh in on local incidents (involving black suspects) even after saying it's not his place to do so. Sports stars and Hollywood celebrities are wearing t-shirts in support of the bad guys. And now police are being targeted for execution because of all of these people.

And people like Parker Molloy try to turn an innocent and wholesome Christmas movie into something that it's not - a representation of today. It's a story. It's a 31 year old story about a fictional character and situation 70 years ago. It's not a reflection of the realities of whites and blacks - then or now. And Ms. Molloy should be ashamed of herself for even suggesting that it is.

Danger For Law Enforcement Just Escalated Big Time

Law enforcement officials put their lives on the line every time they go to work. Because of the uniform and/or the badge, most also face an element of danger even off duty. People who want to do harm to a law enforcement officer don't much care if they're on duty or off. This danger includes police, sheriff's deputies, marshals, federal agents, correctional workers, court officials... all law enforcement officers.

The murders of two police officers in New York City the other day only underscores this increased threat. They were killed just because they were cops. Their killer made it clear, via social media, what he wanted to do and then did it. He even said it might be his last post - knowing full well he might not survive. He was correct about that too, except he made that choice himself.

So why have things gotten so much more dangerous for law enforcement, particularly police officers on the streets? It's a combination of things but the two major contributors are our elected officials and the media.

Several unfortunate incidents have occurred over the last four months that gave politicians, the media and those who make their living from the hate industry fuel to stoke a fire that has been mostly just glowing embers for quite a while.

The first was the shooting of Michael Brown in August. Supported by the media, black activists from all over the nation decided to make the shooting a racial incident when there was absolutely no evidence that it was. Forensic evidence and eyewitness statements proved that Michael Brown did not have his hands up in surrender when he was shot yet the media, the agitators, Al Sharpton, elected representatives in Washington, even professional athletes, all jumped on the "Hands up - don't shoot" bandwagon. But the rhetoric being pushed is blatantly false and divisive in nature, drawing negative attention on the police.

The second case didn't draw national attention until a grand jury in New York found no cause to charge a police officer with a crime in the death of Eric Garner. Garner, who was taken down by police after he refused to be handcuffed for committing the very crime for which he was on bail and awaiting trial, suffered a massive heart attack in an ambulance on the way to the hospital and died. The media kept saying Garner died from the officer's use of a "chokehold" which was also false. Garner said "I can't breathe," eleven times following the take down. Anyone who looks at it logically understands that if you say "I can't breathe" repeatedly you obviously can breathe. The media also, in most cases, failed to report on Garner's physical condition of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, to name a few. He was a ticking time bomb before he decided to fight with police.

So then the media, politicians, activists, athletes and hate mongers took up the additional chant of "I can't breathe." The mayor of New York, Bill De Blasio, threw his entire police force under the bus, making statements that to most people made it sound as if the entire department was made up of racist cops who prey on minorities - even throwing his biracial son into the rhetoric. The mayor's comments so angered the police that their union began a campaign telling the mayor that if any police officers are killed in the line of duty his presence at their funeral is not wanted.

And of course, President Obama, who said it's not his place as President to comment on local incidents even though he can't stop himself from doing it, weighed in and condemned the "deeply rooted" racism in the country and "hidden biases" held by Americans. He held meetings at the White House with the radical activists who organized the Ferguson, Missouri, protests and he gets his race relations advise and counseling from none other than Al (Never Been To A Racial Incident I Can't Profit From) Sharpton.

A third case in Cleveland also drew some attention initially and has been mentioned a time or two by some politicians but it rather quickly disappeared because it didn't quite fit the narrative.

Twelve year old Tamir Rice was shot and killed by a police officer on November 22nd. The difference in Tamir's case is that he was in possession of a very real looking toy gun and made a move to reach for it when the officer confronted him. (The officer was responding to a call about a person in the park with a gun.) It made national headlines for several days and the media and some politicians attempted to further push the racist cop agenda. But the fact that Tamir had a gun kept it from going too far.

Tamir's mother went to Washington DC, to participate in a protest march against police brutality and racist cops. She was spotted walking with none other than Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump - the Florida attorney who has involved himself in every case from Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown to Eric Garner - and now the Tamir Rice case.

In another protest in New York City, participants marched through the city streets shouting "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" The mayor, the President, Al Sharpton and others who have fueled the fires were predictably silent about it.

The whole point here is that the death of the two New York police officers on Saturday can be directly attributed to the negative publicity heaped on police nationwide by those who distort the truth. The main stream media, professional athletes, elected officials - such as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the President, the Attorney General, Mayor Bill De Blasio, Missouri governor Jay Nixon (who called for the arrest and prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson before the case had even been investigated) and race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson have all contributed to the nationwide hatred that is growing against police officers. And they're doing it with malice, aforethought and hatred of their own.

Relations between the NYPD and Mayor De Blasio have gotten so bad that when the mayor arrived at the hospital after the officer shootings the long lines of officers standing vigil outside the hospital turned their backs on him as he walked into the hospital.

In each and every case I mentioned there are facts and evidence that are being deliberately ignored by all who are involved in the campaign against the police. And now the hatred of police has been stirred to the point that people are actively seeking to do them harm and, in the case of the two in New York, killing them.

One expects this type of hate filled rhetoric from people like Al Sharpton. He has made his living from pushing racial hatred. It's not really surprising from the main stream media either. They make their fortunes with headlines. But when the President of the United States and the Attorney General join in, and the NYPD's Commander-in-Chief, Mayor De Blasio, it's not only sad it's shameful. They should all be ashamed of themselves for their part in this tragedy and De Blasio should apologize and resign. But we all know that's not going to happen. 

Mayor De Blasio's security detail is made up of NYPD officers. I hope he's got a team he can trust. If they turn their backs on him there's no telling what might happen. I wonder if he's thought of that...?

Obama Flip Flops On First Amendment

In September of 2010, President Obama reacted negatively to Florida pastor Terry Jones' announcement that he was going to hold a Quran burning ceremony. The President spoke of it with George Stephanopoulos about Jones' plan.

"If he's listening, I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values … this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "As a very practical matter, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan."

He didn't deny that Jones had the right to burn Qurans if he wished but he voiced his displeasure and concern about Jones exercising that right. He was concerned about the safety of our military members in harm's way. (More concerned, it seems, than he was when he changed the rules of engagement for our troops, forbidding them to charge their weapons unless they came under attack and forbidding them to fire at the enemy unless they were under fire.)

In September 2012, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks where four Americans were killed, the Obama administration fabricated a story that a video made by a Christian in the United States was directly responsible for the attacks. They investigated and eventually arrested Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for some (alleged) probation violation and kept him in prison for a year for those violations. 

The Obama administration condemned the video made by Nakoula in basically the same way he condemned Terry Jones. Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice also got in the act. Obama even went told the story on the floor of the United Nations - even though by that time it had already become clear that the story was fabricated. Basically the President of the United States condemned freedom of speech.

Fast forward to this week. Sony Pictures cancelled the release of their new movie "The Interview" after a computer hacker group hacked into their computer system, release large amounts of information to the public, got into their payroll system, etc., then threatened a "9/11 like attack" on any theater in the country that actually showed the movie.

Fearing possible violence against their company and moviegoers Sony cancelled the releases. President Obama spoke up on the issue today saying "Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage. There were threats against some of its employees. I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

The President said he wishes they would have spoken to him prior to making their decision. "I would have told them 'Do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks,'" he said. "That's not who we are. That's not what America's about."

To me it seems apparent that as long as Islam is not involved the President is all for freedom of speech. He doesn't seem concerned about the threats against moviegoers. He didn't condemn Sony for making a movie that ridicules a foreign leader who is not Muslim. He said Sony should ignore the threats and go forward with the movie.

And while I agree with him that no corporation in the United States should cower to cyber terrorism, the flip flop on freedom of speech cannot and should not be denied.

Mr. Obama made a statement yesterday promising to take action.

"We will respond," he told reporters, without giving any details. "We will respond proportionately and in a space, time and manner that we choose. We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship in the United States."

"Americans cannot change their patterns of behavior due to the possibility of a terrorist attack," he said. "That's not who we are, that's not what America is about."

It's not who we are in this case, it seems, but what about the others? The real problem with the President's bold statement can be traced back to Syria, a red line in the sand, and Bashar al Assad. President Obama has a history of drawing a red line then erasing it. Kim Jong Un most likely has nothing to worry about from the President's threats. At least that's what he believes, I'm sure. If Obama backed down after threatening Assad it can be assumed, and most likely is in this case, that he won't back up his threats of retaliation. 

Sadly, the world has little respect for President Obama and little fear of him. If Ronald Reagan was President, or even George W. Bush, North Korea wouldn't be doing this for fear of what we would do in return. But Obama has proved himself to be a weak leader and a weak Commander-in-Chief. No one fears his threats, and with good reason.

I think Barack Obama has written his own legacy. He will go down in history as the weakest most internationally disrespected (Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Israel, Mexico, etc....) U.S. President since Jimmy Carter. And before it's over he may surpass Carter.

To borrow some of the words of our First Lady... For only the second time in my lifetime I am ashamed of our President.

Cyber Bullying On Facebook

The other day I posted an article from the Associated Press concerning the Sandy Hook school shooting and the new lawsuit filed by some of the parents against the Bushmaster Firearms corporation. I can't remember on which page it was.

According to one Facebook reader, the picture that the AP posted with the article was a picture from another, earlier article and was not connected with the actual subject of the article.

That person read the article and saw the picture and apparently was greatly offended by the fact that the picture did not accurately go with the article – so much so that he demanded I remove it. I attempted to explain to him that neither the picture nor the article was mine – that I had posted an Associated Press article, but he still insisted that I remove it.

This morning I noticed a message in my “Other” inbox. I opened that inbox and lo and behold there were two private messages from that person instructing me, actually threatening me if I did not remove the post as he instructed me to do. He sent them on December 15th.

Here are the actual messages:

the photo you posted with the officer holding the ar15 has nothing at all to do with sandyhook, please check your facts before you post them, people will really believe what other people post, thank you Sir.

Look, i already made it clear to you that this photo you posted is NOT related to the school shootings. Either you remove it now or i will be reporting you for posting an intentional lie for the purpose of creating a problem and your account will get suspended for an unknown amount of time. Thank you, Sir.
At least he was polite so naturally I removed the post at his demand... not. I perused his FB page and my response was as follows:

Who do you think you are to tell me what I can post and what I can't? Did someone appoint you the Facebook police? I posted an article that was put out by the Associated Press. If you don't like the article report them. Take your self righteousness somewhere else.

By the way - the video you posted that is supposedly Michael Brown beating up an old man is clearly not him. Besides - the video is a couple of years old and the incident happened in Texas. Are you posting deliberate lies to cause problems? Perhaps I should report you for that so your Facebook account can be indefinitely suspended...? Moron.

I don't normally get irritated by people on Facebook but the nerve of someone I don't know who decides to send me a private message and tell me what to do was more than I could ignore.

I have no idea if he followed through with his threat to report me. I would guess he probably did. But since my Facebook account hasn't been suspended it is also my guess that the people at Facebook weren't anymore impressed with him than I was. Some people simply believe they are better than others and/or think they must get their own way. Here's a word of advice for that person – perhaps you should avoid trying to bully people on the internet. You're not very good at it.

For The Love Of A Dog

There's an interesting story going on in Indiana this week - one that has no easy answer. It's a story about a woman and her dog.

Connie Lay lived with her German Shepherd, Bela, for 15 years. Ms. Lay died recently and in her will she stipulated that Bela, still a very healthy dog, was to be put down and cremated and buried with her owner. When the news was made public there was a large public outcry about animal cruelty.

Bela was scheduled to be put down but because of the outcry he was instead taken to the P.A.W.S. shelter and is being cared for until a decision is made. Several people have inquired about adopting Bela but as of this time, according to Indiana law, he is the legal property of Connie Lay's estate and her request in her will, according to the law and her attorney, is legal.

According to Indiana law animals are property and as long as they are not being treated cruelly, owners may do with them as they see fit. The question comes in whether or not putting down a healthy dog so it can be buried with its owner amounts to animal cruelty. In my opinion it does.

I understand Ms. Lay's love for her dog. I almost understand her desire to have him buried next to her (although she's not going to know about it one way or the other.) But I do not understand her desire to have her dog killed just to satisfy her wishes. That one is beyond me.

The shelter caring for Bela has issued a public statement. They are not taking sides.


PAWS NEWS STATEMENT:

You may have seen the news story regarding Bela, the German Shepherd dog being housed at PAWS Humane Center. We would like to take a moment to clarify the circumstances of Bela’s stay at our Center.

Legally, Bela is considered the property of the estate of the deceased person and not PAWS Humane Center. He is only being housed and cared for at our Center while legal proceedings with the estate are being finalized.

PAWS has no legal right or control over his outcome. Bela will not be euthanized at our facility, either by PAWS staff or the Dearborn County Animal Control Officers. If a euthanization decision is reached by the estate, then it will be the responsibility of the estate to make those arrangements elsewhere.

This matter is still being decided by the estate's legal representation. Any information in regard to donating to him when and if they decide to transport Bela will be released by the lawyer’s office, and local media will be notified immediately.

We appreciate your care and concern for Bela and all of the animals in Dearborn County.

I commend them for taking care of Bela during this difficult decision making time. Eventually it will be up to the court to decide what is and isn't animal cruelty.

Ms. Lay's attorney has also stated that Bela can be transferred to "Best Friends" shelter in Utah. There was no information as to whether that was also stipulated in the will but it most likely was in case her original request was problematic. The attorney has reportedly been paying the bills for Bela in the meantime. I guess that proves not all attorneys are cold hearted vampires....

My solution would be for the dog to be adopted (he's 9 years old) and be allowed to live out the rest of his life with another loving master then, when he finally passes way, Ms. Lay's wishes could be met. He could be cremated and buried next to her. But that's just me. I hope the right decision is made. Bela doesn't deserve to die just because his master did.

Best Friends shelter also released a statement concerning Bela.

“Our animals are our family and this situation is a great example of the plan people should make for their pets who survive them. Whenever possible, the best option is for an adoptive home to have been identified, with informed consent, prior to the owners passing.”

Pretty sound advice if you ask me.

Michelle Obama Went To Target...

A few years ago First Lady Michelle Obama, for whatever reason, decided to dress down, don a baseball cap as a disguise, and do some shopping at Target. I have no problem with that. If she wants to sneak out and be a regular person for the day who am I to find fault? Everyone needs a little down time; time to just be yourself and relax. You know - except for that whole Secret Service detail thing following you around and disrupting the other shoppers.

So Mrs. Obama, who reportedly is 5'11" tall, was "standing in the detergent aisle" when a woman who was vertically challenged asked her if she (Mrs. Obama) would get a bottle of detergent off of the top shelf for her. Mrs. Obama obliged her.

A week or two later Mrs. Obama was a guest on David Letterman. (The Obama's like to be on TV, it seems.) She relayed that story to Dave and his guests, saying the woman didn't even know who she was. There was no animosity and no hint of anything disparaging in her story. It was cute.

Fast forward to 2014. The Obamas were recently interviewed by People Magazine and relayed their experiences with racism and/or racial stereotyping. Suddenly the cute story Michelle told about her shopping trip to Target became a story about how she was "mistreated" by another shopper.

"Even as the first lady," she told the magazine, "during the wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf."

So in the three years since she told Letterman the woman didn't even know who she was and asked her to get something off the top shelf for her that woman has turned into a racist.

Michelle and her famous husband also relayed the President's experiences with racism and stereotyping. 

“Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the South Side of Chicago, who had his share of troubles catching cabs," Michelle said. 

OK - that's most likely true. But it's South Side Chicago. Is anyone surprised?

She further relayed that on one occasion the President “was wearing a tuxedo at a black-tie dinner, and somebody asked him to get coffee.”

OK, if this happened my question would be - what were the waiters wearing? Is it possible someone mistook him for a waiter? Or was it a simple case of "Ask the black guy to get us coffee"? Only Michelle knows for sure.

“There’s no black male my age, who’s a professional, who hasn’t come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn’t hand them their car keys," the President said. I must say honestly that I don't believe that for a minute. But setting that aside - who hasn't been mistaken for "the help" (as the Obamas put it) at one time or another?

I'm white. I'm 6'1" tall. I've been asked on numerous occasions to get something off the top shelf for someone who cannot reach it. Depending on my attire I've been asked "Do you work here?" and have never once known that the question was racial in nature.

You want to hear examples of racism directed at you, Mr. President? In 2010, former President Bill Clinton was talking to Ted Kennedy about you. He said "A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee." Know who complained about that remark? Not one person - not even you.

In 2008, then Senator (and presidential candidate) Joe Biden said of you "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Once again, stereotypical comments from a white person. But hey - that's just Joe, right? You even called him and forgave him after some in the media called him on his remarks and he made a public apology, albeit - with an excuse.

Let's not forget good old Harry Reid, who was impressed with you and thought you would be a good Presidential candidate because you're a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Harry was forgiven as well. It seems racism can only be attributed to strangers and people on the right.

President Obama has been criticized by some for not taking a larger role in fighting racial injustices, particularly against black men.

"If you look at after what happened with Michael Brown, if you looked at what happened after Trayvon, if you looked at the decision after Eric Garner, I'm being pretty explicit about my concern, and being pretty explicit about the fact that this is a systemic problem, that black folks and Latinos and others are not just making this up," Obama recently told Black Entertainment Television. "I describe it in very personal terms."

Certainly he has interjected himself into local incidents of so-called racism (even if the racism aspect of them was disproved over and over.) But why has he not addressed racial bias and racial discord in general? Why, as the first African-American President, has he not made racial harmony one of his priorities instead of racial division? 

I've said before that President Obama could have been the perfect man to further promote racial harmony and reduce racial division in this country. If he'd have stepped up as the first black President (you know - a real black President instead of Bill Clinton) and said "We all need to live and work together in harmony and unison. Let's toss aside the racial barriers that divide us. I was elected by both black and white Americans. That fact alone shows tremendous progress in race relations in this great nation," think how much good he could have done. Instead, he decided to choose sides based on color and make comments that only served to further divide.

I'm not sure why the first black President and First Lady continue to whine about how difficult their lives are. Neither of them grew up in the ghetto. President Obama was raised mostly by his white grandmother and attended private schools, going on to attend Occidental, Columbia and Harvard universities. Michelle was raised in Chicago and in the sixth grade she attended the gifted program at Bryn Mawr Elementary school, going on to Chicago's first magnet high school, then to Princeton and Harvard. Hardly a tough life for either of them.

I'm sure they experienced some forms of racism during their lives. Racism does exist and there are stupid people everywhere. But did they suffer from it? I don't think so. Not having been there that is merely my personal opinion. But in all of Obama's writings I didn't see any major stories where he suffered from the effects of racism - other than saying his grandmother was a "typical white woman." But was that a reflection on her or on him?

Many Americans are getting tired of the Obamas playing the race card on a regular basis. I'm one of them. People see the division in this country growing on a daily basis fed by the President and other prominent blacks in the country. Personally, I'd rather see leadership, calls for unity and the dispelling of racism on all sides. I don't expect such things from the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or even Eric Holder. And it seems the Obamas don't really know how (or refuse) to do that. So nothing is going to change - unless it changes for the worse. And that's truly shameful. Increased racial strife in the United States of America could very well be one legacy of the first black American President. And he'll have no one to blame but himself.

Barack Obama - Making Friends Our Enemies And Enemies Our Friends

President Obama has once again proved that he is more willing to work with tyrants and terrorists than with our friends and allies. He has once again put American lives in danger around the world.

As if it wasn't bad enough that he endorsed Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee releasing their very partisan (and often untrue) report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, last week Obama released three Cuban spies serving sentences in federal prison for conspiracy to commit espionage, conspiracy to commit murder, acting as an agent of a foreign government, and other illegal activities in the United States. In exchange the Cuban government released Alan Gross, an American contractor being held in a Cuban prison on fabricated espionage charges.

For the second time in a year Obama released bad guys in exchange for an American, broadcasting to the world that the United States is now willing to negotiate with anyone holding an American and give them what they want.

Speaking of Bo Bergdahl, has anyone heard anything about him lately? Has the Army released the results of the investigation that were delayed until after the mid-term elections? The delay of their release means one of two things – either Bergdahl was found to have been a deserter, making President Obama look even worse than he already does, or he's going to be exonerated, which would serve to anger even some Democrat voters. Thus the reason for the delay. Personally, I think it will be the latter.

So the President is re-opening diplomatic relations with Cuba with absolutely no changes in what the Cuban regime does. It seems their tyranical government is irrelevant to the Obama administration. He's pretty much doing the same thing with the Iranian government, in addition to enabling them in their persuit of nuclear weapons. It's really difficult to understand. He's willing to talk to dictators and radical tyrants but he refuses to talk to Republicans here at home.

Some believe Obama's renewed relationship with Cuba is being done as part of his legacy. Good or bad, right or wrong, he will go down in history as the U.S. President who restored a friendly relationship with Cuba and opened up trade and travel between the countries. I can't help but wonder at whose expense it will be...?

To Waterboard Or Not To Waterboard? Seriously - Who Cares?

Since the release of the mostly unverified Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) that, among other things, led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, there has been a lot of talk back and forth about those EITs and whether or not they should be used at all.

Contrary to what Dianne Feinstein and her Democrat cohorts on the committee have said (no Republicans were involved in writing the misleading report), the CIA insists that valuable information was attained using the enhanced techniques and thousands of lives were saved because other US attack plans were discovered and thwarted. And since Feinstein's committee didn't interview even one member of the CIA before creating the report she really can't speak with authority.

Some people say that America using enhanced interrogation techniques lowers our own standards down to those of the terrorists. Really? How many of the terrorists who suffered through EITs died during those sessions? How many innocent people, Americans, Muslims, Brits, Christians... died at the hands of the terrorists?

My favorite response is "We have to maintain the moral high ground and not let ourselves be reduced to the level of those we oppose." Moral high ground, huh? Seriously - how far does one have to go to gain the moral high ground over people who do things like this?

These people have no morals. Life means nothing to them. With the exception of their leaders - such as bin Laden, who was always in hiding - these people will kill others as well as themselves in their cause of world domination by Islam. 

Radical Islamic organizations like Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., really only understand and respond to force. Despite Dianne Feinstein's extensive training in the interrogation of prisoners - I still think the CIA knows what they're doing and did what was necessary. And when I see pictures like the ones above, the stories about the thousands of innocent people being killed on a regular basis by these groups, or pictures such as this...

...sorry - I just can't feel badly about a handful of them getting some water poured in their faces or going without sleep. I bet the guy falling to his death above would have preferred to have the water in his face, don't you think?

If the CIA says enhanced interrogation techniques saved lives I believe them. If they say they helped find bin Laden, I believe that too. If they say they're necessary sometimes to get important information that can stop another attack on the United States I say go for it. 

If Dianne Feinstein says the CIA lies, that EITs are torture that don't glean any good information and that we shouldn't be doing it I say....  who cares what she thinks? This is the same woman who wants to take away your gun rights even while having her own concealed carry permit. And I'd bet that if any of these people were still alive they'd agree with me...

Waterboarding, 9/11, And Senate Democrats

Last week the illustrious Dianne Feinstein released a report by the "Senate Intelligence Committee" (seemingly an oxymoron) that talked about the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) used by the CIA against several terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in the years following 9/11.

Citing her reasoning for releasing the report as "Americans have a right to know," and that releasing the report "can and does say to our people that America is big enough to admit when it’s wrong and … learn from its mistakes,” Feinstein also told the world, and the very terrorists we are fighting against, the wrongs that she perceives were done by the CIA.

But there are problems with the report. For one thing, no Republicans on the bipartisan committee participated in producing and publishing this report. In fact, Republicans were against its release.

The committee cites various things that CIA operatives did during enhanced interrogation of prisoners but they interviewed not one person from the CIA - not one person who was actually present during the EIT instances. Nor did they interview anyone from the CIA about the results attained through EIT before saying that no useful information was gained by using these techniques.

The current director of the CIA, John Brennan, as well as at least two former directors and a former head of the agency's Counterterrorism Center, Jose Rodriguez, call the report flawed and said Feinstein's statement that "no useful information was gathered" is absolutely false. At least one person gave up the information that led to Osama bin Laden - information that Feinstein says could have been attained by other means. Dianne Feinstein is an expert on interrogation, I guess.

Many believe Feinstein's release of the report is retaliation for the CIA spying on computers used by her committee. This was her last chance to release the report since she will be replaced as the committee chair when Republicans take control of the Senate in January.

I will leave it to you. Who do you feel knows more about what happened during enhanced interrogations and the aftermath - the CIA or Dianne Feinstein? Personally, every time I hear someone condemn enhanced interrogation techniques I think of the people who made a decision to jump to their deaths from the World Trade Center towers rather than burn to death. Every one of the terrorists that was subjected to EITs was still alive when it was over.


In other news, it seems New York City's crazy liberal mayor may have bit off his own tail. Following his scathing remarks against his city's police department after the Garner case grand jury announced there would be no prosecutions, Mayor Bill De Blasio also stated publicly that he and his wife have taught their biracial son to be very wary and careful around the NYPD. He doubled down recently when two police lieutenants were attacked (on camera) by protesters and De Blasio said the officers were "allegedly" attacked.

Apparently this was too much for the NYPD's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, who has now put out a form on their website asking officers to sign on against De Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito for their "consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve."

The union is asking officers to sign this form and return it to the union to voice their displeasure with his negativity toward the department.

Don’t Insult My Sacrifice

I, _____________________, as a New York City police officer, request that Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito refrain from attending my funeral services in the event that I am killed in the line of duty. Due to Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito's consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve, I believe that their attendance at the funeral of a fallen New York City police officer is an insult to that officer's memory and sacrifice.


_______________________
Signature


It's apparent that the mayor has irritated the police and the union with his careless remarks. De Blasio is the Commander-in-Chief, so to speak, of the NYPD and he's out there in public slamming them on a regular basis. Interestingly, the mayor's security detail is made up of NYPD officers. I can't help but wonder how safe he feels these days...?

All Lives Do Matter

I read an article the other day about a college president who apologized to students for an e-mail she sent out that said "All lives matter."

Student protesters at Smith College in Massachusetts last week were protesting the "violence against blacks" brought on by the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, among others. Their theme was against racism and police brutality, two things that neither of the mentioned cases were about.

The college president, Kathleen McCartney, sent an e-mail to students campus-wide with a subject line that said "All Lives Matter." Apparently some of the students took offense to such a notion with one saying “It minimizes the anti-blackness of this the current situation."

Really? Saying that all lives matter minimizes the anti-blackness of the situation? What anti-blackness is that? You mean the anti-blackness that the police officers showed against Michael Brown and Eric Garner? The anti-blackness that was denounced as false by the families of both men?

Michael Brown's mother and Eric Garner's wife and daughter all said they did not believe the police acted with racial bias in the cases of their loved ones. So where exactly is the anti-blackness?

The same student went on. "Yes, all lives matter, but not all lives are being targeted for police brutality. The black students at this school deserve to have their specific struggles and pain recognized, not dissolved into the larger student body."

Another student said  “It felt like she was invalidating the experience of black lives.”

Ms. McCartney retracted her first e-mail and issued a second. “I regret that I was unaware the phrase/hashtag “all lives matter” has been used by some to draw attention away from the focus on institutional violence against Black people,” she wrote.

Institutional violence against black people? Please.

But what can one expect when even the President of the United States, his Attorney General, and elected members of our government push the lies and the racial division?

President Obama was supposed to be the "Great Uniter." Yet from the beginning he has only increased racial division, beginning in his 2008 campaign when he said "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"

From the Professor Gates incident to the Trayvon Martin incident to the Michael Brown incident, President Obama, rather than attempting to unite people against bigotry and lies, has fueled the fire by commenting in a biased way against the police and whites in general. As the first black American President he had such an opportunity to make positive changes in racial relations here in the United States. And he blew it big time.

Again - the facts and the families of the men who were killed have negated the racial aspect of these cases. Yet people around the country continue to propagate it as if it were fact. Pushing a lie, particularly one that has become so widespread, is just wrong.

Pushing the phrase "black lives matter" over "all lives matter" only tends to further divide the nation. "All lives matter" means everyone. It doesn't negate black lives - it includes them. Those pushing the "black lives matter" phrase and silencing the ones who say all lives matter are only increasing the problem of division.

I read a sign the other day being held by black protesters that said "Black Lives Matter - unless they're taken by other blacks." Sadly, this is the reality that the current protesters continue to ignore. It's easy to blame whitey and the police for the deaths of black men but reality is that black men are being killed by the thousands by other black men. Why don't we see that as a part of the protests? Oh yeah... it doesn't perpetuate the agenda.

All lives matter. Black, white, Asian, Native American, male, female, straight, gay, what have you. All lives matter. God loves each and every one of us. The Bible says we should love our neighbors as ourselves. It also says to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If people began living by those principles there would be far less violence in this nation and the world. How could that be a bad thing?

Congressional Staffers Stage "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" Demonstration

On Thursday a couple hundred employees of the House of Representatives, and about six US Representatives, staged a "Hands up, don't shoot" protest on the Capitol steps in support of the Ferguson, Missouri, protesters. Apparently federal employees and elected officials are continuing to perpetuate the lie that is "Hands up, don't shoot."

The story that Michael Brown had surrendered to Officer Wilson with his hands up has been proved to be a fabrication. Yet it continues to be the meme of protesters nation wide. It somehow changed from being the lie told about Michael Brown to the rallying cry of those who continue to make police shootings of black suspects about race and race only.

Encouraged by President Obama and Eric Holder, protesters nationwide are still telling people that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot - even though every shred of evidence and reliable eyewitness testimony proved otherwise.

So now we have federal employees walking off the job to stand on the capitol steps with their hands raised. Since my tax dollars are paying their salaries I can't help but wonder if they all too Annual Leave to go out there and make their statement? And my tax dollars pay the representatives as well. You can be sure they didn't take paid time off to do this.

I read an article this morning about a St. Louis, Missouri, police officer who is going to be disciplined for wearing Darren Wilson's name on his sleeve while he was on duty babysitting monitoring protesters during what they called a "holiday themed march to city hall."

One or more of the protesters complained to the Chief of Police about the officer displaying the name of Officer Wilson, the man who was exonerated of any and all wrongdoing in the Michael Brown shooting.

From the article:  "It shows whose side he’s on,” one of the protesters explained. “I clench my fist. I want to attack, like they want to attack us. I know damn well they know Darren Wilson wasn’t attacking in self-defense. Darren Wilson had an option to Mace him. But he got to shoot.”

The protester's statement shows either his ignorance or his flat out refusal to accept the truth. And now he and people like him have the backing of people in the House of Representatives!

More from the article: 'Chief Sam Dotson said that the officer violated policies and will be disciplined.

“I couldn’t be more disappointed,” Dotson said. “We spend a lot of time working on professionalism and building a bridge in the community.”

Building a bridge is fine but do you and your officers have to live in a lie to do it?

And one more quote: "Jeff Roorda, business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association, spoke out in support of the unnamed officer

“For months, the U.S. Department of Justice has been calling violent protests where officers were shot at and had Molotov cocktails thrown at them ‘constitutionally protected exercises of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression," Roorda said.

“Now a police officer does nothing more than wear another officer’s name on his sleeve, an officer who has been exonerated of any wrongdoing, and is being told that his passive statement is constitutionally prohibited free speech. There is something wrong with this picture.”

It seems some in our government are bowing to the protesters at the expense of the truth. It's a sad state of events in this country when lies and a mob mentality win out over truth - particularly when the former is supported by our government officials - even those at the top.

News For A Friday

This one is a little long but it's been a busy news week.

It seems everyone is getting into the "white privilege" game. Recently it was announced that the University of Notre Dame is going to offer a seminar on the topic called “White Privilege Seminar: An Introduction to the Intersections of Privilege.” The purpose of the seminar is said to be to “educate and train” students “on the definitions of, historical/current paradigm of and causes/effects of white privilege.”

The seminar will be headed by Iris Outlaw, director of Notre Dame’s Multicultural Student Programs and Services. She also serves on the national board of the American Association of Blacks in Higher Education.

That's correct. Notre Dame is going to offer a seminar on white privilege to be taught by a black woman who, according to Republican campus activist Mark Gianfalla, last year "helped organize protests against the College Republicans’ hosting of Ann Coulter on campus under the premise that Ms. Coulter was a perpetrator of racial hate speech."

"Nothing is stopping her, however, from spewing the idea of white privilege and consequently white guilt in a University sanctioned course," Gianfalla says.

The seminar's description says that students will experience “personal transformation” and become “more aware of injustices and be better equipped with tools to disrupt personal, institutional and worldwide systems of oppression.”

At the end of the seminar students will be required to attend a White Privilege Conference in Louisville, Kentucky for three days. This conference “examines challenging concepts of privilege and oppression and offers solutions and team building strategies to work toward a more equitable world,” according to its website.

“The problem I see with this course is that it is teaching a flawed and inherently racist sociological theory as fact,” says Gianfalla. “This isn’t education. It’s indoctrination. Where is the required counterpoint course on affirmative action? It does not exist because that idea does not fit with the social and racial agenda of the professor.”


Speaking of universities - at least two universities in the United States have postponed exams for any student who "feel traumatized by the grand jury decisions in the Mike Brown and Eric Garner cases.

Really?

Pete Hegseth, a veteran of three tours in Afghanistan and CEO of Concerned Veterans For America, was interviewed by Megyn Kelly last night and naturally found this idea to be ridiculous. He drove home the point by talking about his own history and our military members.

"I was a student at Princeton on 9/11. I didn't get bereavement time," he said.

Hegseth went on to say he knows about the “Ivy League bubble world with adult children who don’t know what the real world is like and want to be coddled in their beliefs.” Hegseth attended Harvard after Princeton.

“Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who didn’t get a day off; who watched their buddy get blown up, who saw their kids get born while they were overseas or their buddy killed. They didn’t get to sit back and wonder; they did their job no matter what.”

Megyn's other guest, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, says that the minority community is traumatized and there is nothing wrong with delaying the exams. Apparently he's not too worried about how these students will function in the real world when they have to deal with tragedy or traumatizing events and will still be expected to maintain their responsibilities.

The student at Columbia who are asking to delay their exams are law students. Kelly suggested each of them get an asterisk placed on their diplomas and should be required to tell perspective employers that they may not be able to go to court in the event of a traumatic situation.

World War II produced "The Greatest Generation." Today it seems the United States is producing "The Pantie Waist Generation...."


In other news, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who once called Edward Snowden a traitor for releasing government information to the public that she felt should not be released, released her own government information that most people don't think needed to be released. Feinstein released the Senate Intelligence Committee's (an oxymoron?) report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) the other day saying the American people "need to know" when the United States screws up. She released it knowing full well that it could endanger Americans all over the world, particularly our military and civilians in the Middle East, and gave those people a 96 hour window to prepare for the potential increase in violent attacks before making the report public. Is this not also treason?

The CIA says the report is full of misrepresentations and untruths. Director John Brennan made a public statement yesterday contradicting Feinstein's claim that waterboarding and other EITs accomplished nothing and did not yield any information that could not have been gathered in more conventional ways. Dianne Feinstein apparently is an expert in interrogation and intelligence gathering techniques.

President Obama and John McCain support the release of the report. Neither of those two surprise me at all. McCain insists that you can get no valuable information by using EITs - even as the current CIA director and several  previous CIA directors (Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, George J. Tenet, and Porter J. Goss) all say that very valuable intelligence came from using those techniques including information that eventually led to locating and killing Osama bin Laden. But again - Feinstein and McCain obviously know better than the directors because.... well, just because.

It is highly believed that Dianne Feinstein released the report for two reasons. First, she is angry at the CIA for spying on Senate computers. And second, in January she will most likely lose her position as Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

No Republicans members of the Senate Intelligence Committee supported the release of the report. Dianne Feinstein and the other Democrats who did should be removed from office. Oh wait... some of them will be in January!


Finally, it it believed by some members of the House of Representatives that Speaker John Boehner made a deal with President Obama last year about amnesty and that it was his intention to fund Obama's Executive Order on illegal immigration all along. I have said before that I believe amnesty, or at least a path to citizenship is coming for the illegals that are already here. Neither side really wants to deport them. Democrats see illegals as future Democrat voters and Republicans see deportation as the possibility of losing Hispanic voters (which historically has been disproved.)

Listening to Boehner's bold speeches then watching what he does has some wondering who got to him; who's pulling his strings. Is he a genuine RINO or does someone have something on him that they're using to get him to become a closet Democrat?

One thing is certain - in my lifetime this is the first time the majority party in the House of Representatives has elected an apparent member of the minority party as Speaker...

Obama's Misguided Biblical References

Why is it that liberals like to ridicule Christians, the Bible, and religion in general until they see a way to use it in their scheme(s) to get something done?

What's more interesting is the way they make up their own Bible verses and/or change the stories to fit their narrative.

At the 1992 Democrat National Convention, "Reverend" Jesse Jackson made the following remarks about Christmas.

“We hear a lot of talk about family values, even as we spurn the homeless on the street. Remember, Jesus was born to a homeless couple, outdoors in a stable, in the winter. He was the child of a single mother. When Mary said Joseph was not the father, she was abused. If she had aborted the baby, she would have been called immoral. If she had the baby, she would have been called unfit, without family values. But Mary had family values. It was Herod — the [Dan] Quayle of his day — who put no value on the family.”

According to his bio information, Jesse Jackson attended the Chicago Theological Seminary in 1964. Is that what they teach at that school - that Mary and Joseph were homeless and that Mary was abused when Joseph found out the baby was not his? Really?

Hillary Clinton, in comments criticizing then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's policies on the homeless, once said “Christmas celebrates ‘the birth of a homeless child.’

Liberal newspaper columnists have said the same thing. I wonder - have they ever actually read the Bible? Neither Mary nor Joseph were homeless. The only reason they were in Bethlehem was because the Roman government ordered them to return to their cities of origin to be taxed. The Romans must have been Democrats.

Fast forward to President Obama's recent attempts at Biblical quotes. Obama apparently believes, or has decided to turn Christmas into an incident of immigration, as if Mary and Joseph were poor, homeless people trying to immigrate to Bethlehem to make better lives for themselves.

"If we’re serious about the Christmas season, now is the time to reflect on those who are strangers in our midst and remember what it was like to be a stranger," Obama said recently in a town hall meeting on immigration.

Obama said the story was about a ‘soon to be mother’ and ‘a husband of modest means’ who were looking for a place to stay but there were no rooms at the inn.

OK, that last part is true enough - except that's not what Christmas was about. Those things were only very small parts of the much greater story. Interesting how that works.

At that same meeting President Obama again showed his ignorance of the Bible when he said “I think the good book says, you know, ‘Don’t throw stones in glass houses.'"

Some try to excuse Obama by saying "Well, it's like the verse in John where Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Except it isn't like that at all. The reference to the glass house is in no way Biblical. And Obama's reference to it really doesn't justify his executive action to bypass Congress on the issue of illegal immigration.

At a prayer breakfast in 2012, President Obama quoted the Bible to justify his proposed tax increases on the wealthy. Obama quoted Jesus in Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

But one not need be a Biblical scholar to know that in this reference Jesus was talking about individual stewardship in an individual's relationship with God rather than government. Jesus is saying we should be faithful and give generously without regret. 

There are those who believe Obama has a God complex and believes he is far greater than the average American. I do believe he's a narcissist and thinks he is better and smarter than anyone else. I think his favorite Bible verse as President is probably Matthew 22:21 "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's," - with Obama being Caeser.

President Obama should probably stay away from Biblical quotes unless he has someone with Biblical knowledge helping him select the proper verse. He should know by now that his misquotes will go viral by the end of the day. Of course, being the narcissist that he is he probably doesn't worry about details like that. And his followers don't much care what he says as much as how he says it. 

Not to worry, Mr. President. If you get caught up in a misquote you can simply turn it around (as you did with the now infamous "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor) by saying "What we really said was...." Your followers seem to live by the motto "Don't worry about what he said before, just take what he said today and go with it." So you're safe with them.

Dear Republican Majority.....

In November the people of the United States of America spoke. We spoke with our votes and we spoke out against the Obama administration, against Harry Reid, and against liberal Democrat policies and practices. We elected you overwhelmingly, in both the House and Senate, to take control of our nation once more and restore her greatness in the world.

We the people told you we want you to do something to improve our economy. We want you to restore the strength of our military and restore relationships with our allies that have been so badly destroyed by the current administration. We want you to secure our borders to stop the constant invasion of illegal aliens (and terrorists) crossing into our country unchecked. We want you to ensure that the President, the House, the Senate and every federal agency follows the laws of the land and the Constitution rather than doing whatever they wish whenever they wish. And we want the President held in check to prevent his lawless practices from further damaging our great nation.

So once the elections were over what did you do after the celebrations ended? You put the same bad leadership back in place in both Houses. Against the cries of the people who elected you - you put John Boehner and Mitch McConnell back in the leadership positions. With those two simple moves you told your electorate "Thanks for the votes. Now it's time to get back to same ol', same ol'."

John Boehner is Speaker of the House. Really? That's the best you could do? In March of last year, despite all of his blustering from the podium, John Boehner said he "absolutely trusts Obama" and that they "have a good working relationship." The only way that's possible is if Boehnor has completely forgotten who he is supposed to represent - the people who elected him. I guarantee those people don't "absolutely trust Obama." If they did Boehner would have been replaced by a Democrat.

Like Boehner, Mitch McConnell talks big but when it comes to action he seems to be in the back of the crowd. He hasn't done much but talk. In 2010 McConnell said "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Guess what there, Mitch? You failed on that one. Why is that? Could it be because Republicans like you failed to carry the message of conservatism to the people so they'd vote against Obama? Could it be that the establishment Republicans pushed the wrong candidate in 2012?

The Tea Party helped Republicans take over the House of Representatives in 2010 in a pretty decisive vote. Two years later Barack Obama won re-election. This year the American people decided they've had enough of Obama and his cronies. They've had enough lawlessness, scandals, hidden agendas, lack of transparency, wide open borders, and outright lies.

You, Mr. McConnell, were elected by the people of Kentucky to fight against those things, open borders and illegal immigration being two of them. So what are you doing? Both you and Boehner are getting ready to approve an omnibus spending bill that will fully fund the President's (illegal) Executive Order that basically gives amnesty to 5 million illegals.

The smart thing to do would be to pass a continuing resolution until after January, when you, the Republicans, take over the House and Senate, then pass an omnibus bill that defunds Obama's amnesty order. Make the President veto it so the American people can see where his loyalties lie. But you're cozying up to the President and giving him what he wants. And you're being open about it. You flat out mislead the American people.

I'm not the world's smartest man. But I know that the illegals who are in the country today aren't going home. Neither party is going to attempt to round up the 12 to 15 million people here illegally and send them home in a mass deportation. Democrats want them here and Republicans actually believe if they send them back they will lose Hispanic votes. (History proves them wrong.)

So if we're not going to send them back what then? Eventually something will have to be done, whether Republicans and conservatives like it or not. First, and foremost, our borders need to be secured. The Democrats haven't done it. No President, Democrat or Republican, has done it in my lifetime. And Obama's policies have only opened it up wider, despite his claims that they are more secure than ever. (I guess he didn't notice the near 300,000 people who came across the border this years alone - even though his administration transported them all over the country trying to find places for them to stay. He must not have been watching Fox News.)

So eventually there will have to be a plan. Amnesty for all illegals, while it has been done before, is not the answer. Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals in 1986 with Congressional approval and with a Congressional promise that our borders would then be secured. The amnesty happened. Border security did not. No other President has done it either. So much for sovereignty and national security.

The best thing Republicans can do for the American people would be to oust Boehner and McConnell from their leadership positions and replace them with a couple of conservatives who have the courage and the fortitude to stand up to Obama and the Democrats instead of sucking up. It's what we the people wanted when we voted in November. It's what we the people still want. As Rush Limbaugh has said many times: "The Republicans were not sent there to compromise. They were not sent there to govern with Obama. They were not sent there to fix anything. They were sent there to stop the things that are transforming and, in some cases, destroying the country." 

The Republicans were elected to stop Obama. Period. Are you paying attention gentlemen?

According to Rassmussen your current approval rating is at 8%. That means you've got immense opportunities for improvement. But already you're screwing up and doing what you want instead of what the voters want. I can guarantee one thing. We are watching. And if you continue to coddle the President and give in to his demands, you both will find yourselves unemployed at the next earliest opportunity. We the people have had enough.

Whose Side Is Dianne Feinstein On?

Yesterday, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairperson, threw the CIA under the bus when she released a report of all of the things she and other Democrats believe the CIA did wrong concerning the enhanced interrogation of Muslim prisoners, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Feinstein, along with the Obama administration, admitted that the release of the report could endanger Americans at home and abroad, with the Obama administration putting military members around the world on high alert, yet they released this report to the public anyway. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, just put the entire military in increased harm's way for political reasons. There was absolutely no good reason for releasing this report now, while we're still at war with radical Islam.

In an appearance on CNN's "The Situation Room," Feinstein attempted to justify the release of the report saying that although Americans around the world could face increased threats because of the report that doesn't mean America "shouldn't clean our house," she he said. "We admit our mistakes."

In an unusual move for CNN, Wolf Blitzer pressed Feinstein about the possibility of Americans dying because of the report.

"I assume you would feel guilty about that," he said.

"I would feel very badly, of course," Feinstein responded testily. "I mean, what do you think, Wolf Blitzer? But we lose control at the end of this year. The Republicans take control, and there's some evidence that this report would never see the light of day."

And there you have the reason the report was released. The Democrats lose control of the Senate in January and this is their last opportunity to take a shot at the Bush administration for its perceived wrongdoings - the safety of Americans worldwide be damned.

In a statement that was completely non-surprising, Senator John RINO McCain said "Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues."

He went on but you get the gist of it.

In a statement that was completely surprising, Senator Lindsey Graham, normally John McCain's strongest ally and supporter, said “The timing of the release is problematic given the growing threats we face. Terrorism is on the rise, and our enemies will seize upon this report at a critical time. Simply put, this is not the time to release the report.

“I believe its release at this time is politically motivated. I have no doubts that it will create problems for our country and the men and women serving our nation around the globe.”

President Obama weighed in, not on the report but on its contents. "These techniques did significant damage to America's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners," Obama said.

From what I've seen over the last six years the main reason we've had difficulties pursuing our interest with allies and partners is Barack Obama. From his first day in office he has been alienating our strongest allies, from Great Britain to Israel. And now he's trying to make friends with Iran and helping them become a nuclear power.

Yeah, the Democrats are doing a great job maintaining the strength and sovereignty of the United States. Absolutely. And Al Gore hasn't made a dime from the global warming myth.