Can We Legislate Common Sense?

Joshua Welch, the 7 year old boy in Maryland who was suspended from school last year for eating his pop tart into the shape of a gun and playing with it as such, isn't likely to recover from the suspension anytime soon.

Josh's parents and attorney have been trying to get the school to clear Josh's record but the school is refusing to do so. Josh's parents are concerned that this incident, to which the school clearly overreacted and handled entirely wrong (in my humble opinion), could negatively effect Josh's future if left documented in his school file. I must agree. The boy was seven years old and using his imagination in a completely non-dangerous manner.

Because the school refuses to relent on the suspension the parents and their attorney are appealing to a school system hearing examiner, Andrew Nussbaum. The case will be heard on Tuesday.

School officials apparently have told Nussbaum that Josh was suspended not for simply violating the no-gun rule at the school (he didn't have a gun - he had food) but said it was a culmination of several incidents involving the boy - something his parents were not told at the time. They were told he was being suspended for making a gun-shaped item. Now they are telling the examiner Josh was suspended for "ongoing classroom disruption," including an incident in which Josh actually struck another student. (He has already been suspended for that incident.)

Josh's father said he was led to believe the suspension for the pop tart incident was due to a heightened concern school officials had about guns and said many of the incidents the school referred to recently he only just learned about.

"There was no reference to previous situations," Welch said. "The big reference point ... was the whole gun issue, the presence of something shaped like a gun and Josh acting like what he had in his hand was a gun and pointed it like a gun. It was that there was no place for the subject of guns at school, and people get scared easily."

I think the school knows they overreacted and are now trying to find a way to justify the 2 day suspension. The right thing to do would be to expunge Josh's school record and forget it. Josh had a pop tart - not a gun. Not a toy gun or even a picture of a gun. It was a pop tart. And you need a little imagination to even pretend it was a gun. But imagination and make believe are being thwarted in today's school systems, it seems.

Any way you look at it - it's still food. I would shudder to think what would happen to a child who brought Chinese food with bamboo "shoots" in his/her lunch. We certainly can't teach kids to make an outline in English class and use "bullets." And if a teacher wants to tell a student to stick with his opinion and stand up for himself he/she certainly can't tell the child to "stick to your guns." See how far we've come. We've become ridiculous.

I know we can't legislate common sense. If we could there wouldn't be so many people without it because it would be a crime. But some things scream for common sense. This is one of them.

Donald Sterling, Racism And Free Speech In America...

Donald Sterling, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, made some disparaging remarks about black people to his former girlfriend, which she secretly recorded and has recently released to the public.

Sterling's comments were offensive to anyone who believes judging others and/or treating them differently based on the color of their skin is wrong. The country reacted swiftly and decisively, condemning Sterling for what he said. Everyone from talk show hosts to the President of the United States condemned Sterling. Then things got out of hand.

Before I address how things got out of hand I have to ask a question. Why is it that President Obama is so quick to condemn anything that appears to be racist against black people yet completely ignores incidents that are the other way around? The President weighed in on the incident involving his friend, Professor Gates. His now infamous statement "I don't know all the facts but the police acted stupidly," was followed by the equally infamous "beer summit" to make himself look like a peacemaker smooth things over. He involved himself in the Trayvon Martin controversy, helping to turn a tragedy into a divisive and incendiary racial incident. And the other day, while speaking in Kuala Lumpur, he responded to a reporter's question about Sterling. And while this time I did agree with what he said - he has never, to my knowledge, made any statements about incidents in which a black person does something atrocious to a white person.

As for Sterling - people are demanding that he be forced to give up ownership of the Clippers because of his comments. Unless there is something in the purchase agreement that limits freedom of speech I'm not sure how that works. You have a private conversation with someone that the other person (illegally, it seems) records and makes public in which you make statements that clearly show your dislike and animosity toward another race and because of that someone can make you give up something you own? When did that law pass?

Not that I'm supporting Sterling. I think he's a jerk. But is there a clause someplace in the law or the contract that says "You can own a sports team unless you're a racist,"?

The fact that Sterling's comments were so widely decried by so many people, and that public reaction to the comments was so quick and profound, proves that racism has definitely changed in America. Sure - it's out there... on all sides. But race relations as a whole have improved in this country. Or they had until Barack Obama became President. Since then I believe there is more racial animosity and that it's constantly being stirred up by the left, and by the President himself.

The NAACP weighed in yesterday and very graciously said that there is room in their organization for forgiveness. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Sterling donates money to the NAACP on a regular basis. Sterling is also a Democrat and has donated large sums to Democrat political candidates as well. I wonder if he donated to Obama...?

NBA great, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, commented publicly on the situation in a surprising way.

"Again, there’s no excuse for his positions. There’s no excuse for what he said. There’s no excuse for anybody to support racism. There’s no place for it in our league, but there’s a very, very, very slippery slope."

“If it’s about racism and we’re ready to kick people out of the league, OK? Then what about homophobia? What about somebody who doesn’t like a particular religion. What about somebody who’s anti-semitic What about a xenophobe?"

“In this country, people are allowed to be morons.”

"Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it."

Personally, I think Sterling's players should go on strike against him. If he professes his dislike of of black people by saying "Don't bring them to my games," why don't his black players take him up on that? They could simply not show up at game time. Think about it. The crowd gathers waiting for the players to come out onto the court for the warm-up session... the opposing team takes the floor for their session... and a handful of Clippers players, none of them black, come out onto the court. What a shock that would be and what a disappointing night Sterling would have. He'd have to refund the ticket prices to the fans, at the very least. And that would be poetic justice.


Yesterday afternoon, after I had finished the first part of this, Donald Sterling learned his punishment for his stupidity. He has been banned from the NBA for life. (At 80 years old that may not be a very long time but it will hurt him.) Apparently there are race related bylaws in the NBA platform (I learned this from a friend who follows it) and that's what they're using to sanction him. Forcing an owner to sell a team is up to a vote of 3/4ths of its members. It is rumored that they already have the votes to force him to sell.

So my question has been answered. Sterling can be forced to sell the team that he owns - not because of a law but because of bylaws of the NBA itself. Those bylaws may sound harsh to some but if you become a member of something and you sign on the dotted line to follow the rules you cannot complain when you're punished for violating them.

Often in life stupid things people do don't really effect them too much. Once in a while a stupid act catches up with you and bites you on the butt. That seems to be what happened in this case. Oops.

Watch Israel Closely....

... to see what may happen in the United States if liberal progressives maintain control of the country.

It hasn't been a secret that the Obama administration, regardless of what they say publicly, is not working in the best interest of Israel on much of anything. The latest attempts of the Obama administration to derail, de-strengthen and "set straight" the sovereign nation of Israel is their push for a two-state agreement in which Israel gives up the West Bank and eventually the Temple Mount. And there have been veiled threats made by the Obama administration if Israel refuses to agree.

In the latest move to force Israel to bow to the will of the Obama administration, Secretary of State John Kerry said “A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” The Daily Beast quoted Kerry as saying, suggesting that he may offer his own peace deal as a final option.

Maybe Senator Kerry, who is known for saying things that aren't quite true, should check out a dictionary before making pronouncements.

Merriam Webster defines the word apartheid as: apart·heid noun \ə-ˈpär-ˌtāt, -ˌtīt\: a former social system in South Africa in which black people and people from other racial groups did not have the same political and economic rights as white people and were forced to live separately from white people.

The reason Israel and the Palestinians don't get along is because the Palestinians are Muslims and they want not only complete control of the West Bank but of the Temple Mount. And last time I checked - Islam is not a race but a form of political religion. So not only was Kerry showing his disdain for the sovereignty of Israel but his ignorance of the English language as well.

I had this thought today as I was reading about what they want to do to Israel in the name of Islam. What if liberal progressives stay in power in the United States for the next 10 years? Will they do the same thing here?

Dearborn, Michigan, is quickly becoming the Muslim capitol of the United States. There are Muslims all over the country now, with another large group in New York, but Dearborn seems to be the largest Muslim community. They have already asked for Sharia law to be implemented for them throughout the country. So far it has been denied.

What if one day a liberal progressive administration decided Muslims should have their own society here in the U.S. and grants them Sharia law. Then what if the Muslims unite in one place, such as Dearborn, and ask for their own separate state, just as the Palestinians have done. Will a liberal progressive administration grant their request and give up a portion of the sovereign United States so Muslims can have their own state? And if not - why not? It's what they're trying to force Israel to do.

The Obama administration is insidious. They quietly work against typical American policies and procedures to effect the socialistic, Marxist changes that they want and completely disregard what's best for Americans. What's scary is that many liberal Americans agree with Obama...

"Cultural Appropriation" Works Both Ways

Just when I think nothing else I read will surprise me or make scratch my head in wonder, along comes something that elicits that very reaction.

It seems some students from the Phi Delta Alpha fraternity and the Alpha Phi sorority at Dartmouth University had jointly planned a fundraiser for cardiac care to be held this past Saturday. The problem began when the students decided to call the event a "Phiesta," a Greek play on the Spanish word "fiesta."

The students were going to have a live band as well as virgin piña coladas and strawberry daiquiris, burritos, chips and salsa, and guacamole.

Enter Daniela Hernandez, a junior and a “Mexican-born, United-States-raised, first-generation woman of color.” Apparently she was offended by the word "Phiesta" (which isn't even a real word) and complained. The presidents of both organizations decided to cancel the event in the name of political correctness.

Ms. Hernandez spoke out about “the Americanization of Cinco de Mayo and its construction as a drinking holiday in the United States, cultural appropriation and the inappropriate usage of cultural clothing, and the exploitation of groups of people and cultures for the sake of business opportunities.”

Wait...  huh? Is this woman for real? I'll not worry about "the Americanization of Cinco de Mayo" because regardless of her feelings, no one owns a holiday nor can they decree how it can or will be celebrated - at least not in this country... yet. Let's get to "cultural appropriation." Ms. Hernandez seems to feel that Americans should not hold events, dress, or even create a word that in any way alludes to her birthplace of Mexico. She apparently believes only Mexican can eat, dress, dance, or speak the language of her native country.

I wonder how Ms. Hernandez goes through her daily life. She is a self professed “Mexican-born, United-States-raised, first-generation woman of color.” Does she live her daily life as a Mexican? Does she eat only Mexican food, speak only Mexican Spanish, wear only Mexican clothing, etc? If not, according to her own philosophy, isn't she appropriating the American culture? If she is living in America, taking advantage of everything it has to offer, speaking "our" language, wearing clothes she bought here... isn't she guilty of doing exactly what she has accused the student organizations of?

"Cultural appropriation" is one of the most stupid ideas yet to come out of political correctness. In today's world, at least in the United States, it is inappropriate to do anything that alludes to another culture lest someone be offended - even as people of other cultures are allowed to "appropriate" the American culture without fear or reprimand. Some schools even allow students of Mexican descent to celebrate Cinco de Mayo by wearing Mexican garb and/or Mexican flag emblems while telling American students they are not allowed to wear the emblem of the American flag on that day lest they offend the Mexican students.

Progressivism is slowly and deliberately destroying the rights and freedoms we in this nation have had for so long. Some lawmakers in Congress, in coordination with Muslim leaders, are now attempting to outlaw speech that in any way criticizes or degrades Muslims, calling it "hate speech." (I have yet to see anyone offer the same opinion or legislation for Christians or Jews.)

What's more sad than this young woman being offended by something that was meant to be a good thing is the fact that the two organizations bowed down to one student's complaint and cancelled their fund raiser. Absurd political correctness only works if people allow it to work. And we as a nation allow more and more of it every day.

Stand up for your rights. Elect people who will support our Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of those who ignore it or those who would "fundamentally change America." They tried that. It's not working out well.

Heaven Is For Real

My wife and I went to see "Heaven Is For Real" yesterday afternoon. All I can tell you (because I don't want to ruin the movie for others who want to see it but haven't yet) is that it's a wonderful family story, a very touching drama and well worth the time and money.

I have had doubts about near-death experiences. They all seem to be the same - lifting out of the body, seeing the doctors and nurses working hard to save their patient, then moving toward a great white light. People pretty much have the same experience before they return.

This boy, at the age of 4, (played wonderfully by Connor Corum) had a different experience. The things he saw, the things he knew when he woke up, truly were miraculous. Of course, there are those who will attempt to explain them away in some fashion but there will be no explanation that makes sense.

You either believe there is a God or you don't. If you don't believe then this movie probably isn't for you. If you do, whether you believe in near-death experiences or not, you will enjoy this film. It's a story that makes you feel good by the end. And the characters are very believable.

Greg Kinnear, whom I have always liked, plays the father, Todd Burpo, who was torn in different directions by his son's experience. A pastor and a father, he just didn't know what to believe. He wanted to believe his son but the things the boy was saying were nearly impossible to believe. His wife, Sonya, played by Kelly Riley, didn't want to believe her son really saw heaven, until he told her something he had no way of knowing. Together the two parents coped and eventually found peace with their son's story.

Six year old Connor Corum is one of the cutest child actors I have seen in a long time. His portrayal of Colton Burpo as the intelligent, happy and adorable 4 year old is aided by his cherubic, adorable face. Corum will likely have a successful future in Hollywood. Let's hope fame doesn't damage him.

One movie critic writing for "Salon" had this to say about it: "This movie is bizarre, conflicted, unintentionally hilarious and profoundly mediocre..."  Based on this and other comments he made I would guess the author is not a believer. So I would not expect him to say anything good about the movie. I will leave it up to you. I thought it was great. See it for yourself - or not. I think you'll be better off if you do but that's just my humble opinion.

Does Jesus reveal Himself to people if they are near death? I believe He does sometimes. My mother saw Jesus the night before she died and we witnessed her side of the conversation with Him. She was always a believer and I have no doubt where she is today.

I saw an interview with the real Colton Burpo recently. He's 14 now and still has full faith that his experience was real. He also says he has no fear of the future because he knows where he's going when he dies. What a wonderful knowledge that is for all of us who believe. And how sad it must be to believe otherwise.

9/11 - Tell It Like It Is... Or Was

I watched a report on Wednesday evening about how Muslims and other "coexist" groups are upset about a video that has been created for the 9/11 memorial in New York that tells the story of what happened, why it happened and who did it.

It seems these people are upset because the video says the attacks on 9/11 were executed by "radical Islamists" in an act of violent "jihad." Those words, they say, might cause peaceful, law abiding Muslims to feel badly about themselves and could give people the wrong impression about Islam. Apparently they do not want Al Qaeda to be associated with Islam because it's not representative of all Muslims. The woman being interviewed was an American member of the clergy.

Know what I say? Deal with it. I want the words "radical Islamists" or "radical Muslims" repeated over and over. I want the word "jihad" repeated over and over. Their stated reason for not wanting "jihad" used is because it has more than one meaning and, again, they don't want people to get the wrong idea. Merriam-Webster's definitions for jihad are:

1: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty;also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline 2: a crusade for a principle or belief

I want the truth to be told to everyone and the truth is we were attacked by Al Qaeda, a radical Islamic terrorist group, in an act of violent jihad against America. That's the truth. And if "peaceful Muslims" are offended by it or feel badly about themselves because of it that's a good thing. I don't say that because I hate Muslims or because I want them to feel responsible for what happened. But they should feel badly because if there truly are millions of Muslims in the world who are opposed to the violent terrorism and violent jihads that are occurring in the world today - why are they doing nothing about it? If, as organizations like CAIR like to say, the terrorists are but a mere few compared to the peaceful Muslims, why are the peaceful ones remaining quiet instead of fighting to stop the radicals who are making them look bad?

I don't believe the majority of Muslims oppose the radical jihadists simply because they don't participate. The Quran tells faithful Muslims that infidels must be converted or be killed as an act of holy war. As is evidenced in their actions worldwide, Muslims are attempting to take control of country after country and slowly and deliberately gain power. In Europe today Muslims are gaining more and more strength. In Sweden, Muslims now make up 41% of the population. 41%. I'm not sure how that happened but it can't be good for the Swedish people.

Tell the truth about Islam and its radicals anytime you can. People need to be reminded of the truth. Our children's children need to learn the truth. Islam is not a religion of peace but a religion of hatred, brutality, and destruction. And if they're offended by hearing that - too bad.

Conservative Principles Don't Work... Or Do They?

I find it amazing sometimes when I read liberal articles and blogs condemning conservative governors who are not only succeeding but have turned their states from huge debt to treasury surpluses. There are so many examples of how conservative principles rescue floundering economies and put people back to work yet liberals refuse to see and admit it. And if they can't discount what the governors are doing then they discount the way he/she is doing it or the actual person in office.

Take Governor Scott Walker. Amid great opposition, including a recall election (that he won), and big union protests, he has turned the $3.6 billion dollar deficit into a $911 million surplus. His critics complain that while he has reduced the deficit, unemployment is at 6%. Wow - unemployment is lower than the national average and that's what liberals complain about? Apparently they're OK with a huge fiscal deficit.

Let's look at Florida. Rick Scott has brought Florida's unemployment numbers below the national average. But because he hasn't yet reached his stated goal from the campaign, liberals are decrying him as a failure. According to one liberal article, Rick Scott's success with the Florida economy has surprised economists. Yet liberals still say he's a failure.

How about Texas? The unemployment rate in Texas is about 6.2% - lower than the national average. Home sales continue to be strong. The state has no income taxes yet in the last three years Texas has gone from a deficit of $27 billion to a surplus of $8.8 billion. Once again, Rick Perry shows conservative principles prove sound and effective.

Jump next door to Louisiana. Bobby Jindal has lead a growing economy in the last few years. Louisiana is one of only 12 states that has more people working today than in 2008.

(http://www.daily-review.com/sites/default/files/DR%20LOREN%20SCOTT_LEO%202014-15.pdf)

According to Politifact, between 2007 and 2012 (the last year for which data is available), inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 2.5 percent nationally, but by 6.4 percent in Louisiana. And as of March 2014, their unemployment rate was 4.5%. He must be doing something right.

In South Carolina, Governor Nikki Haley has cut unemployment to 5.5% and has had a fiscal surplus average of $106 million. She cut taxes for small businesses and has worked to bring new companies into South Carolina which has made hers the fastest growing state on the East Coast.

And finally, let's go North to Ohio, where Governor John Kasich has turned the economy from deficit to surplus and shrunk their unemployment rate to 6.1%. The state saw a surplus in 2012 for the first time in several years. Kasich credits his success to Reagan-style policies: “Balancing budgets, being fiscally responsible, common-sense regulations, and tax cuts.”

And now for the biggest example that conservative principles work. In New York, where the government is facing financial difficulties, high unemployment and people are moving to other states because taxes are so high, Governor Cuomo has resorted to at least one conservative principle in an effort to get new companies to open plants in his state. He is offering tax-free status to companies that start new businesses in his state. That's hard-line conservatism. Cuomo is the guy who told conservatives they really aren't wanted in New York. I wonder if he'll now have to leave his own state...?

Like it or not, conservative principles do work effectively. The left doesn't like them because it's about capitalism and everyone is not going to get an equal piece of the pie. What they don't seem to realize is that in a socialist government and even a communistic government - there will always be the haves and have nots. Except in those types of governments there are far more have nots.

With so many people now using federal government assistance to make their livings, nearly 50% of Americans, how could successful capitalism be a bad thing?

It's Too Easy To Blame Veterans, It Seems

On April 15th, Kathleen Belew, a professor at Northwestern University, published an opinion editorial about white supremacist Frazier Glenn Miller (also known as Frazier Glenn Cross), who gunned down three people in Overland Park, Kansas last week while screaming "Heil Hitler!"

Miller, an avowed racist and anti-Semite who once started his own Klan-related group in North Carolina called the White Patriot Party, killed three people he believed were Jews on April 13th. None of the three victims were actually Jewish.

The problem with Ms. Belew's article is her linking military combat service to white supremacy as if it's widely accepted that the two go together. Because Miller/Cross spent 20 years in the army (and was discharged for passing out racist literature...  duh) and he trained his own group in military fashion, naturally it was his military training that caused his hatred.

Belew says "the number of Vietnam veterans in that (white supremacy) movement was small - a tiny proportion of those who served - but Vietnam veterans forged the first links between Klansmen and Nazies since World War II."

So a few Vietnam vets join extremist groups when they get home and it's because of their military service? I'm sure it had nothing to do with their racist and/or anti-Semite views they had before they enlisted.

She says members of these groups "carried weapons like those they had used in Vietnam and used boot camp rhetoric to frame their pursuit of domestic enemies." What "boot camp rhetoric" is and how it was used she doesn't say.

She quotes the now infamous report released by the Department of Homeland Security in 2009 that says military veterans returning from war are likely candidates to join extremist groups. The report was decried by veterans, military leaders and other military organizations as being far too general.

The report says "Military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists carrying out violent attacks. DHS was "concerned that right-wing extremists will try to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

DHS shelved the report and removed it from its website in the aftermath of outcries from military personnel, past and present. Their generalization makes it sound as if all combat vets are automatically going to become right-wing domestic terrorists upon returning home.

Ms. Belew says of the report "The threat, however, proved real." She doesn't say how or what information she used to verify it - only that it proved real. I guess she's using this particular shooting in Kansas to verify her twisted view of military veterans.

Her final paragraph pretty much sums things up and injects her far-left wing bias into her article.

"That Mr. Miller was able to carry out an act of domestic terror at two locations despite his history of violent behavior should alarm anyone concerned about public safety. Would he have received greater scrutiny had he been a Muslim, a foreigner, not white, not a veteran? The answer is clear and alarming."

No, Ms. Belew, the answer is not clear, except to liberals who think like you. First of all, this incident doesn't qualify as "domestic terror." Who was he trying to terrorize? He killed three people he believed were Jews because he's anti-Semetic to the point of being dangerous. It was a hate crime and that's what he's being charged with.

Secondly, although white supremacists to commit acts of violence from time to time, their violence is nothing compared to say... the black on black shooting that take place in Chicago on a regular basis. 44 deaths there over the Easter weekend. I would venture a guess that very few, if any, of those perpetrators were combat veterans. Yet they're out there killing people. Funny how that type of violence isn't addressed by people like you or the Department of Homeland Security.

Would he have received more scrutiny if he'd have been Muslim? I guess that depends on what his affiliations were. If he was a known member of Hamas or Al Qaeda then the answer is yes. But you yourself said violent behavior is difficult to predict. Did Miller display signs that he was going to go out and kill someone? We don't know. Did he do it because he was a veteran? The evidence doesn't support that conclusion. But you will continue your quest to prove it, I'm sure.

**A note at the bottom of the article says Kathleen Belew, a postdoctoral fellow in history at Northwestern University, is currently working on a book about Vietnam vets and the radical right. Go figure.

It's Only Going To Get Worse...

There are so many crazy things going on in the nation today I hardly know where to begin.

Chicago, Illinois: In the state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, Chicago saw 44 shootings over the Easter weekend, with at least 9 people dead. Chicago Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy, said much of the violence was gang related - then said that the real problem is the lax federal and state gun laws. Apparently more gun laws will cause the gang bangers and other bad guys to give up their guns. I'm sure he's right because gee.... it has worked so well so far.

What is it about liberals that cause them to be unable to understand that gun laws only restrict law-abiding citizens and that criminals really don't much care about those laws? How is that difficult to grasp?

Last night I watched an interview of a gay man concerning same sex marriage and those who don't support it. He said those people who don't support same sex marriage would be targeted - and that "we will get your phone numbers and addresses and come to your house." I'm thinking that would probably not be a good idea. Most people who oppose same sex marriage are conservative Christians and many of them, if not most, own firearms. So I'm thinking that having some angry gay-rights activists show up at those homes in an attempt to force those dissenters to change their mind would not only fail, but could get someone injured or killed. I can tell you if an angry mob showed up at my front door I'd be arming myself as I call 911.

In other news last night - President Obama (supposedly) taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for a while. When he became President he took the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Unfortunately, President Obama has decided he will only enforce laws he personally agrees with and will either ignore or change, by Executive Order, those he doesn't like so much. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, instructs Assistant U.S. Attorneys nationwide to use their own judgement on which laws to consider for prosecuting criminals. He and the President are conspiring right now to release thousands of convicted felons from federal prisons because they believe their sentences are unfair. The problem with that? Congress is responsible for writing and/or changing laws - not the Attorney General or the President.

Finally, in a recent Op-ed in the New York Times, a liberal college professor from Northwestern University attempts, feebly, to link military veterans to white supremacist hate groups. But that's a topic for another full page so it will be tomorrow's post.

Cheerleading For Islam

President Obama used his Easter address to the nation as yet another cheerleading session for Islam and I, for one, am getting really sick of it.

"For millions of Americans, this time of year holds great meaning," the President said.

"For me, and for countless other Christians, Holy Week and Easter are times for reflection and renewal. We remember the grace of an awesome God, who loves us so deeply that He gave us his only Son, so that we might live through Him. We recall all that Jesus endured for us – the scorn of the crowds, the agony of the cross – all so that we might be forgiven our sins and granted everlasting life. And we recommit ourselves to following His example, to love and serve one another, particularly “the least of these” among us, just as He loves every one of us."

"The common thread of humanity that connects us all – not just Christians and Jews, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs – is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. To remember, I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. Whatever your faith, believer or nonbeliever, there’s no better time to rededicate ourselves to that universal mission."

He didn't say anything wrong, some will say. Maybe. But was it necessary for the President of the United States, on the most important Christian holiday in the world, to even bring up Islam? Islam as a whole is only its brother's keeper if it's brother also follows Islam. 

Regardless of what President Obama and others would have you believe, Islam is not a religion of peace. Peaceful religions don't mutilate young girls, stone and whip women and behead non-believers. Religions of peace do not allow women to be raped only to make the woman provide five male witnesses (an impossibility) to say it wasn't her fault. 

I would like to have a President who did not feel it was necessary to appease Islam every chance he got and one who did not think it was necessary to have federal agencies like NASA change their mission from space exploration to making Muslims feel good about themselves. (In July of 2010, in Cairo, NASA head Charles Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering — science, math and engineering."

See - I just don't see that third task as necessary or productive. Obama wants to make Muslims feel good about themselves and tasks a federal agency to help with that. In the research I've done about Muslim contributions to the world - most of their contributions were made centuries ago.  Not one article I read had any modern day contributions - within the last 500 years. So why is it necessary to try to make them feel better about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering when they haven't really contributed to any of them in centuries? And why is it necessary for the President of the United States to mention them on Easter?

I know the argument - not all Muslims are terrorists and hate Christians. But there certainly are a lot of them. And it doesn't take hundreds of millions of Muslims to bring about great and negative change in the world if Western nations refuse to recognize the problem because it's "not politically correct." 

Leftists and progressives cannot bring themselves to admit that Islam as a whole is evil and not of the one true God. And neither can President Obama - and he claims to be a Christian. I don't know what his relationship with Jesus Christ is. Only he and Jesus know. And it's not my place to judge. But I do know that what comes out of his mouth sometimes makes me wonder about it.

Mr. President - please stop pandering to Islam and start doing the right things for your own country. Oh -and please stop supplying arms to Al Qaeda backed rebels in Syria (and who knows where else.) After all the death and threats we have received from Muslim terrorist organizations it's time for you to make a choice - your own country or Islam. Personally, I'm OK if you choose Islam. Feel free to head over there whenever you wish. I'll take my chances with Joe...

Happy Easter...

11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 

14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Easter is upon us. It's a Christian holiday about which I have mixed feelings. I'm sure other Christians feel the same way as I do.

Easter is a holiday that brings sadness, humility and great joy to me.

I'm saddened when I think about what Jesus went through while fulfilling the prophecy of his death. No man should have to suffer what he suffered to fulfill the prophecy. He was flogged severely, mocked, physically abused, starved, and kept from fluids. If you read modern medical articles about what he went through you cannot help but be moved to sadness knowing what he suffered to save us. You can read what He went through here:

http://accordingtoglen.blogspot.com/2012/03/easter-special-medical-version-of.html

Movie special effects have been improved to the point that they can literally show the brutality that was suffered by the Christ when he was held captive by the Romans in Jerusalem. It also shows us what happened to Him on Golgatha, just outside Jerusalem, on the day He died.

I'm humbled because Jesus not only did this to fulfill Biblical prophecy but did it to save the likes of me, a sinner who doesn't deserve it. His death forgave my sins and gave me direct access to Him and to God. And he voluntarily suffered the physical abuse and agony for me. Would I do the same for Him?

And Easter means great joy to Christians worldwide who rejoice because Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to save us from our sins so we, as believers, can enter the kingdom of heaven. He fulfilled the prophecy in the Old Testament and gave His life for us. He gave His life so we might live eternally. If you don't believe it means nothing to you. If you do believe - it's the best gift you have ever received.

Happy Easter to all who know the truth. We will meet in the kingdom of heaven. And we will rejoice together forever.


O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Bundy Supporters Are "Domestic Terrorists"

So said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier this week after the standoff at Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch. He reiterated it while on a local show on a Nevada TV station just a few days later.

“Nothing more than domestic terrorists,” adding, “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism. There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”

First of all, Harry, you don't get to make up your own facts. Sniper rifles in the freeway? Really? The only sniper rifles I saw were in the hands of the feds on hilltops and bluffs. And none of the people there who were not law enforcement officials had automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are illegal in this country. but you're probably ignorant enough to believe that AR-15s are "automatic assault rifles."

The FBI defines domestic terrorism as follows:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
*Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
*Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
*Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Which of those three things did the protesters do, Harry? They did nothing that was dangerous to human life nor did they violate federal or state law. They may have intimidated the BLM agents but I think that's simply because the BLM was outnumbered. (And remember - they showed up with automatic weapons and sniper rifles first.) They didn't try to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. They didn't try to influence the government by intimidation or coercion nor did they cause any mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. 

It seems to me the only ones who tried to intimidate anyone by force was the Bureau of Land Management. Are they domestic terrorists, Harry?

And speaking of terrorists - yesterday, President Obama signed a bill into law that would prevent a former Iranian terrorist from obtaining a visa to enter the United States as Iran's UN ambassador.  Hamid Aboutalebi, who was one of the hostage takers during the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, has been named by his country as their new UN ambassador. The law, drafted by Senator Ted Cruz and approved by both the House and Senate, prevents Aboutalebi from entering the country. Good move, right?

In yet another act that demonstrates that he will do what he wants when it comes to enforcing laws, President Obama said:

“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our nation.”

“I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion.”

In other words, "I'll enforce it if I so choose." I can't help but ask - what's the point of signing a bill into law if you're going to ignore it and do what you want? Does he believe the symbolic signing of the bill appeases people? And will he allow this terrorist into the country after all? Time will tell.

"We Can't Have People Violate The Law...

...then just walk away from it."

So says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid was speaking of the patriots who flocked to the Bundy ranch last week in support of Cliven Bundy in his fight against the Bureau of Land Management. How easy it seems to be for the Democrats to pick and choose which laws they will and will not enforce.

President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, have systematically changed, delayed, and ignored laws that are already on the books," even as they say "It's the law of the land. You can't change it. From immigration laws to drug laws to Obamacare, the Obama administration has over and over that the only laws they really care about enforcing are those that help them out in some way - even though they all took an oath to uphold the law and support and defend the Constitution.

In the last few years President Obama has signed "The Dream Act", giving some illegal aliens the right to stay in the country without consequence. He lies about how many people he has deported and he told the INS to stop apprehending non-violent illegals. He has unilaterally changed and/or delayed parts of the Affordable Care Act to benefit himself and/or the Democrats who are running for re-election in November. And Eric Holder told Assistant United States Attorneys they can pick and choose which drug laws to enforce and to use their own discretion. None of those things are upholding the law or the Constitution. This is by far the most corrupt administration in American history and Republicans refuse to do anything about it because they will be branded racists by the President, Eric Holder and the main stream media. The Republicans are cowards and it's disgusting.

Recently, a Utah businessman is rocking both state and national politics after claiming Utah Attorney General John Swallow helped him broker a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a federal investigation into his company quietly disappear. Reid reportedly accepted $250,000 in the deal. Of course, the one man who could have substantiated the allegation, died of cancer last month. So Reid will probably get away with it. And I have no doubt the allegation is true.

Harry Reid is probably the one politician in Washington that I like even less than President Obama. OK - truth be known I think I would put Nancy Pelosi between Reid and Obama - except Pelosi is simply a raving lunatic. And I can forgive mental illness. (Maybe all those facelifts have put too much pressure on her brain. Loved what Liz Cheney said about her last week. "Her spine doesn't go all the way to her brain." And I heard someone on the radio today call her "The Wicked Witch of the West.... Coast.)

Oh... and for those who might want to suggest that my dislike of Obama is racist - look closely. I just put a white Democrat ahead of Obama on the dislike list and put a white female Democrat in a close race for second. Kinda blows that racist theory out of the water, huh?

There Was Only One Crucifixion With Resurrection, Al...

"Reverend" Al Sharpton on Wednesday decided to write his own scripture by inferring that Barack Obama has been crucified by his critics but has risen again. Sharpton, who caught himself as he was making his declaration, may need to go back and study the Bible some more. His speech borders on blasphemy.

"I think that the message is, no matter what the world may do to unfairly, no matter how your crucified, nailed to the cross at home, or in your personal relationships, or on the job that you can rise if you don’t lose yourself during the hard times and the challenges." 

"The story of Jesus on the cross. no matter what they humiliated him with. no matter how they mocked him he took it, because he knew he could rise. And the story of Easter and my message for this Easter session is no matter what unearned suffering you go through, that if you know you can rise above it, don’t become like the diseases that you fight."

"As I looked at President Obama at our convention last Friday where all he took he’s been able to rise politically again.. I’m not comparing him to Jesus, but I am saying that to every crucifixion there is a resurrection for those who believe…"

Hey Al...  I'm no reverend but I know there has only been one crucifixion in history from which the person rose from the dead and it certainly wasn't Barack Obama. For you to compare your idol to Jesus Christ is pathetic.

First of all, Barack Obama has not been crucified by anyone. Receiving criticism and experiencing a large drop in approval ratings because of poor job performance is part of being President. I'm somewhat surprised you didn't say he was resurrected from a lynching since Obama himself has claimed to be a victim of racism and you like to turn everything into a racial issue. I'll give you credit for not doing that this time but what you said was far worse. Despite what some of his followers believe, Barack Obama is not God, nor Jesus, nor "our Lord and Savior," as Jamie Foxx once proclaimed.

Secondly, your statement "to every crucifixion there is a resurrection for those who believe…" is complete hogwash. As I mentioned above - there has been only one incidence of this and there will only ever be one - regardless of what you believe or what you tell others. And you call yourself a reverend?

Finally - changing the topic just a bit - I find it fascinating that you and the President and Eric Holder are such fast friends considering you and your organization, National Action Network, owes the government nearly $2 million in back taxes. A rancher in Nevada owes the government just over $1 million and last week the government sent helicopters and over 200 armed agents, including snipers, to try to collect it.

While all of that was going on you spent an evening with Eric Holder and another with Barack Obama  and not even a single IRS agent showed up to collect what you owe. It makes a person wonder....

“U.S. Right Wing Extremists More Deadly Than Jihadists”

So reads the title of an article written by CNN's Peter Bergen the other day. The article begins:

“On Sunday, a man shot and killed a 14-year-old boy and his grandfather at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and then drove to a nearby Jewish retirement community where he shot and killed a third person. Police arrested a suspect, Frazier Glenn Cross, who shouted ‘Heil Hitler’ after he was taken into custody.”

So with his opening paragraph he has already discredited the title. He's calling Frazier Cross a right-wing extremist because of Cross' reference to Hitler. Hitler was a Nazi. Nazis are National Socialists and socialism is a left-wing ideology. And as we learned during the Democratic National Convention just prior to the 2012 election, many liberals hate Jews and Israel. 

Cross is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Modern day Democrats and liberals like to ignore the dirty little fact that the KKK was started, operated and maintained by Democrats after the Civil War. Long time Democrat House member Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and, in fact, wrote a letter to the Imperial Wizard of the Klan in 1946 that said ‘The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.’

Certainly that was a long time ago but my point is that contrary to what Mr. Bergen believes, association with the KKK is not something that automatically says "right-wing." In fact it rarely does.

Bergen talks about the numbers of people killed in the United States by "right-wing extremists" compared to jihadists since 9/11.

"Yet the death toll in the shootings in Kansas is similar to that of last year's Boston Marathon bombings, where three people were killed and the suspects later killed a police officer as they tried to evade capture. (Many more, of course, were also wounded in the Boston attacks; 16 men, women and children lost limbs.)

In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime)."

Except, as I pointed out, Cross is most likely a liberal socialist who is anti-Semitic. Bergen goes on:

"By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11."

Interesting that he begins on 9/12, without taking into account that just the day before nearly 3000 people were killed by jihadists. How convenient to begin his count the next day.

Bergen also mentions Timothy McVeigh as "a man with deep ties to far-right militant circles." Except Tim McVeigh was an anarchist and most anarchists are leftists.

The title of the article is misleading in another way as well. The generalized statement “U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists” is misleading because he doesn't specify jihadists in the United States only. He makes it sound like 34 people killed by what he calls "right-wing extremists" (again, discounted) is more than Al Qaeda kills worldwide. A that's ridiculous.

Nowhere in the article did he mention Nidal Hasan, the jihadist who killed 13 people on Fort Hood in 2012, which would bring his jihadist total up to 34. Why, you ask? Because despite the fact that Hasan shouted "Allahu Ackbar" as he was killing people and stated over and over during his trial that he killed for Allah and Islam, the Obama administration decided it was simple workplace violence. It made Obama and Eric Holder look foolish but it certainly was convenient that Bergen didn't have to include them.

I'm fed up with liberal "journalists" who don't report news honestly and make up their own facts. Did I mention that the New American Foundation is funded by George Soros and that most of Bergen's "research" was done by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Can you get further left than that??

Thoughts For A Thursday....

There has been a lot of controversy in the last five years about voter fraud. Democrats claim it doesn't exist - even though people have been prosecuted and incarcerated for it. There is also evidence in several states that people who are dead have registered and voted. Unwittingly, liberal progressives have proved what many people have believed since the beginning of civilization. If dead people vote in national elections does it not prove there is life after death??

OK - not as funny as it was when I heard it on TV last night. But it might be good for a laugh if you're talking to a liberal atheist.

Be glad you don't live in Australia and ride a bicycle. A 21 year old woman was texting and driving and hit a man on a bicycle, fracturing his spine. She pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, was fined $4500 and lost her license for a year or so. But it seems the only thing she cares about is the license.

"I just don’t care because I’ve already been through a lot and my car is, like, pretty expensive and now I have to fix it," she told a responding officer two days after the Sept. 20 collision. "I’m kind of pissed off that the cyclist has hit my car. I don’t agree that people texting and driving could hit a cyclist. I wasn’t on my phone when I hit the cyclist."

She did call for emergency responders after the accident - while parked 300 feet down the road. She did not get out nor offer any help to the victim. Nice girl.

There's another headline on AOL that says "Putin Admits To Sending Russian Troops To Crimea." Gee... was there anyone out there who didn't know this? 

On the politically correct front....  Golfer Bubba Watson celebrated his win in Augusta last week by taking his family to a local Waffle House for a meal. Watson tweeted a picture of himself and his family around the table. Apparently Mr. Watson patronizes this particular Waffle House whenever he is in town.

"We are very fortunate to call Bubba Watson one of our regulars," said a Waffle House vice president.  "After growing up in Florida and going to school in Georgia, we were glad to be there for him as he came up the ranks in golf. It's a testament to Bubba's character that even though he has two green jackets, he still comes to us for his grilled cheese and hash browns. All of the Waffle House Nation is proud today."

Nutritionist Katherine Tallmadge apparently took exception to the way Bubba Watson celebrated his win. She was on Neil Cavuto's show the other day complaining about it.

"Why are you sick about Bubba Watson eating at Waffle House after winning the Masters," Cavuto asked.

"Well, it would be great if celebrities and sports figures set a better example for our obese nation." she responded.

"Well, what's wrong with the Waffle House," Cavuto replied.

"There's nothing wrong with the Waffle House if it's an occasional splurge, but these gazillionaires love to show Americans that they're one of you," Tallmadge said. "And so, to win a popularity contest, they go to waffle houses, diners, steak places, when in reality, to be a great athlete or a celebrity in good shape, they don't really eat like that."

Apparently Ms. Tallmadge believes Watson's repeated visits to Waffle House in Augusta is a show to make people think he's "one of them." Gee - I bet Watson thought he was going there because he likes their grilled cheese and hash browns.

Watson also took his best friend and pastor with him. I can only imagine how politically incorrect it must be to be seen in public with your pastor...

The arrogance of people who not only presume they have a right to criticize you for where you eat but to assume that you're doing it to gain some sort of personal public approval. It seems Ms. Tallmadge believes everyone is like.... her.

Finally, in Lincoln, Nebraska, the other day a three year old boy who had been reported missing was found safe and secure - at the local bowling alley inside a claw machine filled with stuffed animals. It seems while the boy's mother was in the bathroom (according to her) the boy opened the front door and wandered out. The bowling alley is a few blocks from their home.

No one knows how the boy got into the machine but that's where he was. It was reported that police and bystanders ran out of quarters trying to get him out but that could be a rumor...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/missing-boy-claw-machine-nebraska_n_5155936.html?utm_hp_ref=weird-news

Nope - No Media Bias Here...

Last week, e-mail pages obtained from the IRS indicated that Representative Elijah Cummings (D), Maryland, was involved in the IRS targeting of True The Vote, a conservative vote monitoring organization.

Specifically, e-mails obtained from the IRS by the House Oversight Committee show that Cummings staff members communicated with the IRS multiple times concerning True The Vote and after the IRS began questioning the group concerning their request for tax exempt status, his staff began sending communications to the group asking virtually the same questions of them.

Cummings, who in February denied that his staff was ever in communication with the IRS concerning this group, was recently sent a letter from Darryl Issa and five other top committee members, asking him to explain the the connection.

“Although you have previously denied that your staff made inquiries to the IRS about conservative organization True the Vote that may have led to additional agency scrutiny, communication records between your staff and IRS officials – which you did not disclose to Majority Members or staff – indicates otherwise,” the letter to Cummings states. “As the Committee is scheduled to consider a resolution holding Ms. Lerner, a participant in responding to your communications that you failed to disclose, in contempt of Congress, you have an obligation to fully explain your staff’s undisclosed contacts with the IRS.”

My point is not about Cummings involvement, although I may be writing about that at another time. On Sunday, Elijah Cummings was a guest on "Face The Nation" with Bob Schieffer. Schieffer, who has a history of leaning to the left on his show, never once asked Cummings about the e-mails or his involvement with the IRS scandal. Is this not news? A sitting Congressman is indicated in an illegal incident concerning the IRS and his political opponents and isn't even asked about it when interviewed on TV? 

Last night on "The Kelly File", Dennis Michael Lynch, a documentary film maker, told the audience what he saw at the ranch on Saturday. Interestingly, he said that FOX News was the only TV news agency he saw in the area. I don't know if that's true or not - I wasn't there. But I don't know why he'd say it otherwise and it certainly wouldn't be the first time the main stream media ignored a big story because it put the Obama administration in a questionable light. They pretty much ignored Benghazi after information came out that Obama did nothing to help. They continue to ignore the IRS scandal. The list goes on.

Opponents of FOX like to say FOX makes up stories. I guess it's understandable if the media outlets where they get their news don't report things they don't want to be made public. That results in people believing anything that's not reported on the network they watch is made up. And of course, die hard liberals spread that rumor to serve their purpose. FOX is the only news outlet that reports negative things about the Obama administration.

In other news, there is a report this morning that says the Obama administration is backing off of their plan to take back taxes owed by family members, even dead family members, from the refund checks of the living. It was revealed recently that the Obama administration and the IRS were planning to recover tax revenue from the children and other family members of people who died owing the government money. If your parents or grandparents owed money to the IRS and had passed away, the IRS intended to get that money from you - even if you personally didn't owe them anything.

This morning a news article says the Obama administration is backing off of that plan due to public outcry. Imagine that. Anyone want to bet it's because it's an election year and the President doesn't want to anger hundreds of thousands of voters by doing something that outrageous? The Democrats are in enough trouble already according to the most recent polls. I guess the President decided not to make it any worse.

Climate Change Is Real!

I know you're surprised to see that title on one of my posts but it's true. I can tell you first hand that climate change is real and going on right now. Here's how I know:

On Friday and Saturday it was sunny and in the mid to high 80s here in North Texas, dropping into the upper 60s overnight. Then early Sunday morning it changed and began raining. It rained all morning and into the early afternoon, then it changed again. The clouds went away and the sun came back out. Then it changed again and it rained for a short period of time.

Overnight it changed and became windy and cool. The high today is supposed to be around 50, dropping down near 30 overnight. (Gotta love that global warming!) Then tomorrow it will change back to the 60s and  it will be 70 again by Wednesday.

It's changing all the time. And I have to go out today and figure out a way to protect my garden from the freeze tonight. Otherwise I'll have to start all over again.

So you see - climate change is real. It sometimes changes daily, although once the hot weather finally comes to stay in Texas it doesn't change much from day to day until winter comes again.

Common Sense Lost Forever From Our Schools?

In this day and age, when kids can be suspended and even expelled from school for pointing finger weapons or eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun, I thought nothing would surprise me when it came to stupid decisions made by school authorities. I was wrong. I read an article this morning that has be dumbfounded.

Several months ago in a high school in Pennsylvania, a sophomore student with some learning disabilities was being bullied by some of his fellow classmates. The student, who has not been named publicly, has been diagnosed with comprehension-delay disorder, anxiety disorder and ADHD.

The 15 year old had told his mother about being pushed, tripped, and nearly burned with a cigarette lighter by other boys in his class. They mocked him and called him names. The boy decided to gather some evidence of the abuse so he secretly recorded an instance of the abuse on his iPad, which he then presented to his mother. She, in turn, presented the recorded evidence to the school principal. That's when things went wrong.

Instead of taking action against the tormentors, the principal called the police who came to the school and interrogated the victim. When his mother arrived at the school she was told by the principal her son was facing felony wiretapping charges because he had made a recording in a place where there is an expectation of privacy. The police officer initially agreed with the principal but eventually reduced the charge to disorderly conduct on the basis that the student engaged in offensive actions “which served no legitimate purpose.”

The boy said he recorded the incident because he wanted to prove to his mother that he wasn't lying about the abuse. (How sad that he had to 'prove' it to his own mother.) “I was really having things like books slammed upside my head,” he said. “I wanted it to stop. I just felt like nothing was being done.” So he got the idea to record an incident so he could prove it and maybe get it to stop. Instead he's got a criminal record. He was actually found guilty of the disorderly conduct charge on March 19th.

Maybe it's me but I think his conduct was quite orderly. He could have taken a baseball bat and beaten his tormentors unconscious. He could have brought a gun to school and shot them. He could have brought a knife to school and stabbed them. Instead he brought an iPad and recorded them, and promptly got in trouble himself.

So let me get this straight... the government can wiretap American citizens and record, store and read your e-mails just because they want to and it's OK, but a 15 year old kid records his classmates bullying him in an attempt to get it stopped and he gets charged with a crime. There was no mention of what, if anything, happened to the bullies.

When I was a kid in school and learning to spell principle and principal I was told that the easy way to remember which one was which was that the principal was your pal. In this day and age it seems that's no longer true.

An Interesting Idea For Voter Identification

Yesterday I read something that was supposedly suggested by former President Bill Clinton concerning voter identification and may be the best idea I've heard yet. If instituted, it would solve the voter ID problem painlessly and finally do away with the ridiculous notion that voter ID disenfranchises minorities.

There is no requirement to carry identification when out and about unless you are operating a vehicle, in which case you are required in all states to carry a valid driver's license. (Except in California where it is mandatory to carry a valid ID even when operating a bicycle.) However, people are required to provide valid identification for so many other things (opening a bank account and/or cashing a check, renting a hotel room, buying liquor or cigarettes if you look underage, getting on a plane, applying for food stamps or welfare, applying for Medicaid or Social Security [but not Obamacare], applying for a job or for unemployment, etc.) so having personal identification is really a must for everyone. Except liberals want you to believe it's unfair to make people have identification. Oh, and an ID was mandatory for anyone wishing to get into the Democratic National Convention.

Liberals also deny the existence of voter fraud in elections, even though there have been prosecutions of numerous people for that very thing. And there is proof that hundreds of dead people have voted, some more than once - the most recent cases in North Carolina.

Republicans and conservatives have been trying for several years to make identification mandatory to vote in national elections. Some states have passed voter ID laws, much to the dismay of Democrats and Eric Holder. They're still stuck on the "disenfranchise" nonsense.

President Clinton's idea, which is actually a good one, is to put every person's ID photo on their Social Security Card. A Social Security account is mandatory for all Americans (I haven't heard liberals complain about that...) so everyone would have a card with their picture on it. And they could use it for voter identification purposes.

I'm sure the left will come up with a reason this would be a bad idea because it would put an end to voter fraud once and for all. But since it's from one of their beloved leaders maybe some of them will consider it. Nah...  it's too sensible.

And The Racial Divisiveness Continues...

Our illustrious Attorney General, Eric Holder, speaking to Al Sharpton's National Action Network annual convention on Wednesday, went off script to whine about being a victim of ridicule and adversity and indicated that it was because he is black. He said he and the President are victims "of unprecedented, unwarranted ugly and divisive adversity."

Poor Eric Holder. Unlike any other Attorney General in history, he and he alone is being held accountable for the things he does; and for the things he does not do. The previous day, during questioning in a House Judicial Committee oversight hearing, Representative Louis Gohmert was displeased with Holder's continued vague, evasive answers. Finally Gohmert brought up the fact that Eric Holder had been held in contempt of Congress for not providing specific documents requested in the Fast and Furious investigation.

“I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said.

Holder responded quickly and with obvious irritation, pointing his finger at Gohmert. “You don’t want to go there, buddy! You don’t want to go there, okay,” said Holder.

Buddy?

“I don’t want to go there?” Gohmert responded.

“You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me,” Holder replied.

So if it's a big deal to Attorney General Holder to be held in contempt of Congress why has he not provided the documents requested? Liberals will argue that he has presented thousands of pages of documents and that's true. He just refuses to give up the ones the committee needs to get answers.

So with hurt feelings Mr. Holder went to see Al Sharpton to get a little sympathy.

“I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and lasting reforms, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted ugly and divisive adversity,” he said. “And if you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me — you look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

This is just a thought... but maybe you should take a look at two things. First, take a look at yourself and what you have done, or what you have failed to do. In addition to your refusal to effectively cooperate in the Fast and Furious investigation, you failed to charge the New Black Panthers with voter intimidation even with video evidence.

You appointed a blatant Obama supporter to investigate charges that the IRS was targeting conservatives, something that they openly admitted.

You bugged the phones and monitored e-mails of Associated Press employees and gave even closer scrutiny to FOX News' James Rosen without cause.

You failed to indict HSBC after it acknowledged laundering money for Mexican drug cartels, helping rogue states avoid international sanctions and working closely with Saudi Arabian banks linked to terrorist organizations saying "It might hurt the economy."

You said it's perfectly OK for the President to authorize drone strikes on American citizens deemed by the President to be enemies without due process and without accountability - even as you insist that captured terrorists be given all rights to due process.

You instructed Assistant U.S. Attorneys to ignore the mandatory drug sentencing guidelines at their own discretion, in direct contradiction not only of your authority but of the U.S. Sentencing Committee and of the House of Representatives - something that was decried by Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Need I go on, Mr. Attorney General? How many other Attorneys General have a dirty laundry list that compares with yours?

Gohmert was on The Kelly File last night speaking about Holder's remarks. “Alberto Gonzalez, George W.] Bush’s appointment, was brutalized by Democrats in the Senate and House,” Gohmert said. “John Ashcroft was brutalized. Ed Meese — brutalized. John Mitchell, now he may have deserved what he got, but he sure got a lot worse treatment than this attorney general. So he makes these assertions, like some lawyers do in opening statements, but then the trouble is, when it comes to putting on evidence, he has none.”

Eric Holder has been one of the worst, if not THE worst Attorney General in my lifetime. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and it seems he is determined to do just the opposite.

President Obama has also played the race card on several occasions since he has been President. He seems to believe that people don't really oppose his policies and his ideology so much as they just don't like the color of his skin. Many liberal Obama supporters make allegations of racism against anyone who opposes the President. "Racist" seems to be the catch phrase of the Obama administration.

 It's not about race it's about failure; failure to do the job you were elected/appointed to do. Obama is doing what he wants. In all fairness to Holder - I'm guessing he's doing exactly what the President appointed him to do - run roughshod over the Constitution. It may not be legal or ethical but it's what Obama wants.

It was learned yesterday that the House Oversight Committee has copies of e-mails which indicate Representative Elijah Cummings (D), was involved with the IRS' Lois Lerner in the targeting of at least one conservative political action group during the 2012 election. Is it any wonder that Cummings has been insisting for weeks that there is no evidence of wrongdoing and that the hearings be ended immediately?

I can only wonder how long it will be before Elijah Cummings says that using the e-mails against him is racist...

Freedom Of Speech Is Slowly Being Taken....

...by radical LGBT activists, race baiters, Muslims, and leftists in general. And somehow many people are OK with it.

The state of New Mexico severely restricted the First Amendment rights of its residents on August 22, 2013, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin in a case centered around religious rights and freedom of speech versus discrimination.

In 2006, the Huguenins, who own and operate a photography business in Albuquerque, refused to photograph a lesbian wedding because their Christian beliefs do not agree with or accept same sex marriage. The state of New Mexico ruled that their refusal to photograph the couple's union violated the couple's civil rights in the same way as if it was an interracial couple - which is absolutely ludicrous and makes no logical sense.

The United States Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed to the American people that their religious beliefs and their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are no longer guaranteed. They refused to hear the case, thus allowing the ruling in New Mexico to stand.

In March of 2013, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted a briefing on reconciling nondiscrimination principles with civil liberties. One expert explained in his written statement, “The sweeping application of non-discrimination principles poses an increasingly severe threat to civil liberties, especially to our first liberty of religious freedom.”

In other words, giving everything a blanket non-discrimination status without considering what the First Amendment says is a threat to everyone's civil liberties and not just a particular group.

Following the ruling,  Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said "Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe. The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system."

In a recent incident , radical LGBT activst groups targeted Mozilla CEO Breden Eich immediately following his appointment as CEO because in 2008 he donated $1000 to support Proposition 8, the anti-same sex marriage bill in California. The dating website okCupid called for a boycott of Mozilla and Firefox because of that donation. Their co-founder, Samuel Yagun, demanded that Eich resign.

Activists took to Twitter to rail against Eich's support of traditional marriage and called for him to be removed from his position.

Once Yagun learned that Eich would resign on Thursday he ended the boycott saying "I would have loved to have engaged in a debate over what happens when freedoms collide," Yagun said. "We have freedom of speech, which I would defend to the end."

So Mr. Yagun is all about freedom of speech as long as 1) you agree with his beliefs or 2) you shut up and go away if you disagree with his beliefs. That's so typically liberal.

By the way - on Monday it was learned that in 2004, Yagan made a $500 donation to Utah Representative Chris Cannon, who opposed same-sex marriage, voted against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination and for prohibition of gay adoptions, according to the blog site Uncrunched. Should Yagun now be forced to resign from his position? Did I mention hypocrisy?

Mother Jones goes into a little more detail on Yagun.

"Of course, it’s been a decade since Yagan’s donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon’s votes on gay rights. It’s possible that Cannon’s opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It’s also quite possible that Yagan’s politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox’s Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn’t include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest."

On Thursday, Mr. Eich resigned from his position with the following statement: “I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”

Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay blogger, spoke out about the pressure that brought about the resignation. "You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others' views as the Christians?," he asked. "You've just found a great way to do this. It's a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it."

Fred Sainz of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, disagreed with Sullivan.

"I don't believe this is a question of suppressing free speech," he said. "It's a question of the market regulating itself."

If Eich had remained in his position, "a tsunami of negativity was going to eventually overwhelm him and the company," Sainz said. "It's entirely a measure of our success as a movement that we are now part of that long list of issues that CEOs have to consider."

Of course you don't believe it's about suppressing free speech, Mr. Sainz. It's not your freedom of speech being suppressed.

It's entirely a measure of how the radical LGBT community and the "tolerant" left is steadily removing freedom of speech from Americans who disagree with their agenda. In their world you are fully entitled to freedom of speech - as long as your speech is the same as theirs. If you disagree with them you are a target and they will do whatever they have to do to shut you up or shut you down. Tolerance at its best.

Yesterday, baseball great Hank Aaron said basically that those who don't support President Obama are racists, particularly the Republicans in Washington. Apparently Mr. Aaron, like many other Obama supporters, believes that political ideologies don't count and that the only possible reason for people might disagree with the President is because he's black. Mr. Aaron is not alone.

Everyone from Al Sharpton, to Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Eric Holder, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and even Chris Matthews, have said the main reason people oppose Obama is because they're racists. It's an attempt to get people to shut up and quit criticizing the President. Their attitude is "If you continue to criticize President Obama, regardless of how true your words, we will shout you down with charges of racism and make you look bad. It's one of the main reasons the Republicans in the House haven't impeached President Obama yet.

And the same thing happens in the Muslim world. If you criticize Islam in today's society you will be called Islamophobic, or a bigot, or a racist (even though Islam is not a race.) The Muslim organization CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is constantly complaining when some individual or group puts out true and accurate information that is derogatory to Islam. They blame Islamophobia because they have no other valid argument. They have also begun a movement in attempt to make any criticism of Islam illegal.

Now, before anyone gets their panties in a wad and begins leveling allegations of racism, bigotry, homophobia, Islamophobia, (and any other derogatory thing they can think of toward me, understand this. I don't care what your race, color, sexual preference, religious preference or political affiliation is. I have friends in nearly all of the named categories and none of them would tell you I'm bigoted, hateful, or treat them any different because of who they are or what they believe. I don't care who you love or want to spend you life with. I don't care where your parents and family came from (as long as you're here because you want to be in America and follow our laws and customs. I care about our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That goes for all of the aforementioned categories (and any other I may have missed) as well. You all have the right to say what you wish - even if it's a derogatory response to an idea someone has that is different than yours. And I will protect that right because, while I may not agree with what you say, if we take away your right to say it we all lose in the end.

Sadly, our courts are becoming more and more liberal as time goes by. And if the Supreme Court ever gets a liberal majority, religious rights and freedom of speech will be all but gone. So much for what the founders put in place. President Obama has been complaining about that since he took office. And slowly but surely he and his fellow liberals are getting their way.

Nancy Pelosi: It's Time To Quit Blaming Bush

On Friday, April 4th, Nancy Pelosi spoke with reporters on Capital Hill and made the following statement:

“I have to note that today we have replaced all of the jobs lost under the Bush economic policies and recession that that took us into. It’s taken this long to build back from that.”

I wonder if Mrs. Pelosi should have said that out loud? By making that statement it seems clear that Democrats can no longer blame George W. Bush for the poor economy, high unemployment numbers and substantially smaller number of people in the work force.

When President Obama took office, in the middle of the recession, there were 80,507,000 people over the age of 16 who did not participate in the labor force. Even though the President and officials like Nancy Pelosi say unemployment has gone down, they are creating jobs and the economy is recovering, the number of people over 16 who are not in the work force today is over 90 million. 

The Obama administration says unemployment is down to 6.7%. Of course, they don't count those people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work so they are no longer a "documented" part of the unemployment numbers. Real unemployment numbers put the total about about 12.3% right now. But you won't hear that from the government or the main stream media.

The fact is that nearly 1/3 of the population over the age of 16 is not working. That's a whole lot more than 12.3%. Of course Democrats continue to blame the Republicans for job growth - even though the Democrats gave us Obamacare, which the CBO says will eliminate over 1 million full time jobs by 2020. But somehow that's the fault of the Republicans - even though they voted against the Obamacare bill.

Mrs. Pelosi is also the one who said that "unemployment checks are fastest way to create jobs." I actually have Democrat acquaintances who believe this and applauded her for saying it. The fact is that while unemployment checks may serve to maintain some jobs because of continued (albeit less) spending by consumers, they in no way create jobs - except maybe in the Unemployment Office. If that were true we'd have a booming economy because of the vast numbers of people on extended unemployment for the last five years.

Mrs. Pelosi, Harry Reid and many other Democrats live in a world where whatever they say, no matter how outrageous or obviously untrue, becomes truth to them. Harry Reid has flagrantly lied about numerous things over the last few years, both on the Senate floor and during press conferences. He has never been called those lies by the main stream media or the Obama administration. When on the Senate floor he called Americans liars because they spoke out about losing their health insurance or about their premiums going up because of Obamacare, Americans took offense. When it was proved those people were telling the truth, Reid denied ever saying it, even though there was video footage of his statement. When that lie didn't work he said he didn't remember saying what he said.

What's truly amazing to me is that Americans continue to vote for these people and some continue to blame Bush and Republicans for everything the Obama administration does wrong. Obama is in his sixth year as President. The economy still sucks, the number of people not working is still far higher than it was when he took office, and the number of people on welfare and food stamps has increased exponentially. But his blind, ignorant, and misguided followers fault him for none of it. Some even want him to be able to run for a third term.

It scares me when I find myself agreeing with Bill Maher but sometimes America really is a stupid country.

Should Americans Be Taxed For Not Having Children?

That's what one liberal writer at Slate.com thinks. He believes because it is so expensive to raise a child that people with children under 18 should pay less taxes and people who are childless should have their taxes raised to cover the difference.

In an article posted on March 31st, Slate writer Reihan Salam said: "I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I ought to pay much higher taxes so that working parents can pay much lower taxes."

He continues: "Who should pay more? Non-parents who earn more than the median household income, just a shade above $51,000. By shifting the tax burden from parents to non-parents, we will help give America’s children a better start in life, and we will help correct a simple injustice. We all benefit from the work of parents. Each new generation reinvigorates our society with its youthful vim and vigor. As my childless friends and I grow crankier and more decrepit, a steady stream of barely post-pubescent brainiacs writes catchy tunes and invents breakthrough technologies that keep us entertained and make us more productive. The willingness of parents to bear and nurture children saves us from becoming an economically moribund nation of hateful curmudgeons. The least we can do is offer them a bigger tax break."

Can you get any more liberal than that? Notice he didn't suggest that people consider not having children or not having them unless the couple can afford them. Further down in the article he suggests that parents are victims because they are forced to pay not only to raise their children but taxes as well.

"While non-parents can focus on their jobs in laser-like fashion, parents are rarely in a position to do the same. Every time a sick child keeps a parent home from work, her earnings suffer, either directly, because she’s taking an unpaid leave of absence, or indirectly, because she’s missing out on opportunities to climb the corporate ladder."

So the solution, according to Salam, is to make non-parents pay more taxes. We can't have these greedy non-parents keeping their money when there are parents out there who are actually having to take responsibility for their decision to have children.

I find his sentence "Every time a sick child keeps a parent home from work, her earnings suffer..." interesting as well. He apparently believes all parents are women. I understand that in the majority of households the mother stays home with a sick child but that's not always the case. And certainly women have more income differences because of it. But the way he said it is questionable.

According to Salam, 36% of Americans currently have children under the age of 18. In America today, 47% of Americans don't pay taxes as it is. This guy wants another 36% to pay less, if any at all, and let the other 17% of Americans pay for everything. Liberals won't be satisfied until only the wealthy pay taxes in America and anyone who is not considered wealthy enjoys the benefits for free. Amazing.

Why We Should Not CAIR

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has objected to a new film, "Honor Diaries," that exposes the custom of violence against Muslim women, depicting practices in Muslim countries described in the film as “systematic, institutionalized misogyny.”

The movie has been shown on many college campuses and at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva despite CAIR's objections but CAIR has recently succeeded in getting the screenings cancelled on at least two campuses, one being at the University of Michigan. CAIR says they do not object to the movie itself but to the people who funded it and they want to get the word out about that so people can "make their own choices" about whether or not to see it.

Wait...  huh? They lobby to keep the movie from being seen so that people can make their own choices about seeing it?

In a recent segment on "The Kelly File" on FOX News, Megyn Kelly talked about the movie and about the controversy with CAIR. In fact, she had a representative from CAIR on the show. Agnieszka Karoluk, representing CAIR-Chicago, stated:

"We are against female genital mutilation, honor killings, any form of violence against women. What we do want to do, however, is tell the public about the funders behind this film so that the public can make their own informed decision about whether or not they want to show it, screen it or watch it."

In fact, during the interview Karoluk did not once reject or deny the content of the film but instead only complained about a group who funded it. That argument makes about as much sense as if someone made an accurate, historical documentary about slavery in the United States and the mistreatment of the slaves and the NAACP objected to the movie simply because it was funded by a white person.

The film was funded by the Clarion Project, a pro-Israel, non-profit organization whose stated mission is to "educate people about the inherent dangers of Islamic extremism, provide a platform for moderate Muslim voices, and motivates people to take an active stand against those who want to deny others their basic human rights." Its founder is of Canadian-Israeli descent.

“It’s a well-known, Islamophobic organization,” Karoluk claimed. “What I’m personally disgusted by as a Muslim woman, as a feminist, is that someone like the Clarion Project would take this film and use it to promote their own hate-filled agenda.”

Another guest on the show, human rights attorney Brooke Goldstein, responded “CAIR is obviously protesting the content of the film,” and said CAIR’s position was “indefensible,” calling CAIR “the PR arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.” She added, “If CAIR doesn’t want you to see it, you should take it a a cue to go out and watch this movie, because you know there’s truth contained therein.”

Megan Kelly said that CAIR had demanded an apology from her for the segment about the film the evening before. Her response was "Well, guess what - you're not getting it!" Good for her.

CAIR uses the same tactics to silence opposition as the left does. They try to intimidate with claims of racism, bigotry, hatred or Islamophobia in an effort to keep people from telling the truth about their "religion of peace." 

CAIR touts itself to be similar to a "Muslim NAACP." Yet they spread lies and hatred within the Muslim community and have ties to various radical Islamic groups, such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are not our friends and, in my humble opinion, should not have as much influence with our government. Nor should they be allowed to bully people who object to Islamic violence.

It is not racist nor Islamophobic to tell the truth about Islam. It's necessary. Islam is spreading rapidly throughout the world and their goal is to convert everyone to Islam and eliminate those who refuse. CAIR is a part of that and is working to spread the cause of Islam here in the United States. And they are lying to the American people to do it.