Where Are We Headed As A Nation?

Someone asked me recently how long I think it might be before something major happens in or to the United States we know and love. I must admit I have been thinking the same thing for the last few years. Some will say I'm a racist (what people say when they have no argument) or a right-wing extremist (Janet Napolitano already called me that and she's never even met me) but I'm looking at the situations in the USA and the world today and can't help but worry about our future. And like it or not - (I know most of you will be surprised... wink, wink) I believe most of the problems we have today are directly related to the Obama administration.

First and foremost - let's look at the economy in the last five years. Some on the left still want to blame President Bush for where we are today but those who do are living in their own fantasy world. The Obama administration lies to the people about unemployment. They claim unemployment is currently at 6.2%. It's what they don't tell you that causes a problem with their numbers.

The percentage of people aged 16 years or older who are currently participating in the work force is 62% - down from 66% in 2004. That's a total of 12 million work-age people who are no longer in the workforce but are not counted as unemployed. There are actually about 91 million people who are no longer in the work force. That's nearly one third of the population.

Marketwatch.com posted the following graphic recently:

They put real unemployment, counting those who have dropped out of the labor force, at 15%. Yet the Obama administration continues to tout their success at bringing unemployment down to 6.2%. It's a sham.

Yes, yes, I know... the Bush administration probably didn't tell the truth about unemployment either. But Bush hasn't been President for over five years. When are people going to get over absolving Obama of any wrongdoing because some other President did something similar? Have they never heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?" In today's America - two wrongs seem to make a left.

Now on to the national debt. On July 3, 2008 — the day before Independence Day — Obama said “driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars to $9 trillion is irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Now Obama has been President for about 5.5 years and the national debt is currently $17,556,253,300,000 and climbing.  That's nearly double what it was when he took office. So is raising the debt by 8 trillion dollars "unpatriotic," Mr. President?

President Obama has done his best to alienate our allies. His first week in office he went to the Middle East to apologize to Islam for America. He then returned a bust of Winston Churchill back to Great Brittain soon after his initial inauguration. When news of the return became public the White House dismissed as "outrageously false," then two days later had to retract their statement and admit that they sent it back "by mistake." Many people believe Obama returned the bust because Churchill was in power in Britain when Obama's grandfather was being held by the British authorities in Kenya between 1949 and 1951.

President Obama stopped progress on the U.S. missile shield in Poland, giving in to Russian pressure and alienating the Poles. He has pressed Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, to return to their 1967 borders and give the West Bank to the Palestinians and, in fact, warned them that by not doing what he wanted they could be isolating themselves.

Here at home the President has done nothing about stopping illegal immigration but has told Border Patrol and other law enforcement officials not to enforce certain immigration laws. He has now opened a pipeline from Central America into Texas and we have seen 51,000 minor children enter the country illegally since October of last year. And the government's answer to the problem? Put them on planes and buses and ship them to various cities around the country.

The President has stated flat out that if the other branches of the government (specifically the House of Representatives since Harry Reid is Obama's flunky) won't do what he wants he will simply do it unilaterally and ignore the Constitution and the House. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said the other day that if Speaker Boehner doesn't act soon on immigration reform then "the President will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

Borrow the power from whom? Where, exactly, does the Constitution and/or any of the amendments give the President the authority to "borrow power" from anyone for anything? The President continues his lawless reign and Democrats, who loudly complained that George W. Bush was taking away their rights, encourage this President to ignore the Constitution and do whatever he wishes to do. 

The President requested $2 billion today to process and "repatriate" more people who have come across the border illegally, including the unaccompanied minor children. Does anyone really believe Obama is going to put a bunch of minor children on a plane and send them back? And what good does it do to have hearings and deport people if you don't stop the ongoing influx? As I said the other day - if you want to clean up water damage you first have to stop the flow of water!

I could go on. Vladimir Putin is doing whatever he wants in his neck of the world. China owns our debt and could call it in at any time - which would destroy us. And an Islamic terrorist group is taking over Iraq, working on Syria (with Obama's help) and is setting up a caliphate in the region from which to train, direct and launch terrorist attacks on other nations, including ours. (I was told last week by a liberal acquaintance not to worry about that because they're not going to bother with us. Yeah, OK.

Very few nations of the world have any respect for the USA anymore. North Korea has even threatened to attack us. And what is the Obama administration concerned with? Placing more LGBT people in embassy positions and forcing football teams to change their name because liberals just don't like it.

Is something bad going to happen to the USA soon? It certainly is a possibility. There are rumors that FEMA and DHS are gearing up for possible civil unrest and that the President is preparing to declare martial law if and when it happens. Nothing this man does would surprise me - except following the Constitution. That would be a surprise!

President Obama - Still In Touch With The Regular Folks

President Obama is no different than the rest of us. Oh sure - right now he's the President of the United States and none of us are. But that's temporary. He's had difficulties in life just like the rest of us. In fact, he shared a story just the other day that emphasized that very fact.

“Rebekah [Erier] sent me this letter, and it moved me,” President Obama told donors at an evening fund-raiser in Minneapolis, trying to show just how in touch he is with regular Americans.

“She and her husband married about six, seven years ago; he was in — he was a carpenter, he was in contracting. He had a good job; housing market plummets, loses his job. Gets another job. Gets injured on the job, they accumulate some debt, that job is lost,” Obama said, saying the couple has two children.

“He gets another job with the railroads, which require him to be away basically four or five days a week while she’s taking care of two kids. … She goes back to school to get an accounting degree [and] ends up with $12,000 worth of debt. She gets a job at the accounting firm, he gets a new job, although at a significantly lower pay, back in construction and he can be with the family more.”

The President didn't mention that the couple's difficulties happened during his administration.

But Obama decided to meet the woman during his time out of Washington.

“I told her this. I said, you may not hear it because the press will not report it — the only reason I’m in politics is because of you,” Obama went on.

“When I see you, I’m reminded of when Michelle and I were starting off early on, and Michelle calling me in tears because we had just lost the nanny and we had no idea whether we were going to be able to replace her with somebody.”

Now see that? President Obama is still in touch with the regular folks. He obviously understands what it's like to be unemployed, broke and in debt because he and Michelle once lost their nanny and weren't sure they could replace her. What a guy.

Doesn't it just make you proud....?

Obama Still Talking "Phony Scandals"... And Other News

At a staged town hall meeting in Minnesota yesterday President Obama basically told people not to pay attention to the news stories they hear that show him in a negative light.

Mr. Obama said that the story about Iraq was real but everything else was just "Washington infighting."

"They're fabricated issues, phony scandals," he said. "It's not on the level, and that must feel frustrating. It makes people cynical, and it makes people turned off from the idea that anything can get done."

"We've got a party on the other side whose only rationale, motivation seems to be opposing me," Mr. Obama said Thursday. "Despite all that, we're making progress."

As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter in that famous debate...  "There you go again."

President Obama knows that each and every one of the "scandals" throughout his administration are real and warranted. But he obviously (and maybe correctly) believes his followers do not have functioning thought processes when it comes to him and his administration. He thinks they will believe whatever he says - and in many cases that seems to be true. People in the audience cheered when the President said "we're making progress." Obviously they hand pick the audiences for these things but my question to the President is "What progress is that?"

Unemployment is still high. The workforce is still dwindling. The economy sucks. The GDP dropped nearly 3% last quarter. Iraq is being overrun by terrorists after we liberated it and walked away. Oh - and computers all over your administration are crashing every time Congress subpoenas information from them. (The latest being an EPA computer that contained e-mails of a former EPA official subpoenaed by Congress.) Apparently the major cause of computer hard drive failure in your administration is a subpoena...

It seems the tide of mindless loyalty may be turning, however. A recent poll shows that 70% of voting Americans, including 52% of Democrats, believe the IRS deliberately destroyed e-mail evidence that was subpoenaed by Congress. That's a majority of voting Democrats albeit, a small majority. And you still tell your blind followers it's a "phony scandal." Mr. President - you become more unbelievable every day.

Changing the subject - let's take a look at what used to be our Southern border. Right now the border seems to have been erased and people, including unaccompanied children, are streaming into the country. The government's answer to the problem is to increase border security, right? Oh, no. The government's solution is to put all of these people on planes and buses, take them to various cities around the country and drop them off with a promise that they will report to an immigration court on a certain date for a hearing. Yeah - that's brilliant. And it'll work....  not.

Those illegals who are actually housed are packed like sardines in detention centers and warehouses with few supplies and only a blanket and a space on the floor to sleep. And still they come across the border. The government just doesn't seem to understand the principle that before you can clean up the mess of a flood you have to stop the flow of water. Duh.

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto recently said he is "indignant" over the deportation of Mexican migrants back to Mexico and said U.S. lawmakers show a "lack of conscience" in failing to pass immigration reform.

Really? Well, Mr. Mexican President - who cares what you think? You leave your borders open for people from Central and South America to cross freely on their way to the United States but if an American citizen accidentally crosses your border from the United States you throw him in prison. Your indignation about deportations of Mexican citizens in our country illegal is pretty ludicrous considering you don't bother to control your own borders (except against Americans.) And since your entire country is being overrun by drug cartels and you seem helpless (or clueless) to do anything about it - who are you to criticize anyone?

Want to stop deportations of Mexicans back into your country, Mr. Pena Nieto? Then stop them from coming to the United States in the first place! And close your Southern border to stop the army ant-like flow of illegals from using your country as a highway to the U.S.

And while you're at it - release Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi and let him come home. He's done nothing to deserve being in prison so long. You're whining about the U.S. deporting your citizens who are intentionally entering our country illegally but you won't deport one U.S. Marine who wandered into Mexico by mistake?

Hey - I have an idea...  Show President Obama that two can play the deportation game. Deport Sgt.Tahmooressi back to the U.S.A.right away! That'll show us who's boss!

Boehner Suing Obama Is A Waste Of Time

Speaker of the House John Boehner has announced plans to file a lawsuit against President Obama in hope that the court will force Obama to follow the law and stop abusing his executive authority and circumventing Congress. Boehner, and anyone else who is familiar with the law, knows this is a show and a waste of time. Boehner is up for re-election in Ohio in November and this is most likely a show to boost his base. Either way he'll be wasting time and taxpayer dollars.

Let's take a look at it realistically. If he files the suit and the case moves quickly through the system, and wins, the President, as he has already done in the past, will ignore the court and continue doing what he does while his attorneys file an appeal. The case will undoubtedly eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court, most likely next year sometime. By that time who knows what Obama may have decreed through Executive Order? 

For the sake of the argument (and my blog post) let's say the case goes to the Supreme Court in 2015 and the justices rule in favor of Boehner. That'll fix the problem, right? Hmmm...  Let's look at how well Obama has abided by court rulings so far.

In May of 2010, following the BP oil spill, the President, through his Department of Interior, halted all offshore drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. Oil companies filed suit and won. The Obama administration ignored the ruling and a U.S. District Judge in Louisiana found the government in contempt saying Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling.

In 2012, President Obama declared that the Senate was in recess and illegally appointed people to the National Labor Relations Board, bypassing the confirmation procedure. A case was filed by Senate Republicans and the court ruled the President was outside the law by declaring the Senate in recess. The Appeals Court reached the same decision. Just a few minutes ago the Supreme Court unanimously that the President overstepped his boundaries and illegally made those appointments when the Senate was still in session. The appointees are currently still serving on the board.

In August of last year Eric Holder filed suit against Texas claiming their voter ID laws are "designed to disproportionately impact Hispanic and African-American voters.” Of course Holder's claims are ludicrous but he did it anyway - after the Supreme Court had stripped the feds of power over state election laws. Apparently a Supreme Court ruling is too general for Mr. Holder and he wants them to have to rule on each individual state.

And in September of last year the Obama administration sent letters to colleges and universities around the nation urging them to continue using admissions to increase diversity in their schools even after the Supreme Court ruled schools should approve the use of race as a factor in admissions only after concluding “that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” The letter said "the administration hopes colleges and universities aren’t making changes in admissions policies because of the ruling."

In other words - "We want you to ignore the Supreme Court ruling, as we often do, and continue doing what you've been doing."

Never mind the blatant lawlessness of this President. Let's go back to Boehner's plan to file suit. Ultimately it's the President's job to enforce the laws of the land. Obama has already proven that he does that selectively, if and when he does it. So if Boehner is successful and wins a Supreme Court ruling against the President - who's going to see that the ruling is enforced? The President?

Maybe Boehner doesn't understand that part because he is not an attorney. He should talk to one or more of the 37% of House members who are attorneys before he jumps off with this. He could save us all some money.

An Ugly Victory In Mississippi

The Republican establishment in Washington should be ashamed of what they did yesterday in Mississippi. They certainly have other things they should be ashamed of as well but let's focus on yesterday's Republican primary election for now.

Incumbent Republican Senator Thad Cochran, who has been in the Senate since 1978 (a total of 36 years) ran in a primary against his challenger, Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniel. When the election was over, Cochran had won with nearly 51% of the vote to McDaniel's 49%. OK – fair is fair, right. Cochran won the majority even though it wasn't a large majority.

But there's more to it than that. Research after the vote showed that McDaniel actually won the Republican vote by 8 points. Evidence shows that Cochran, along with establishment Republicans, padded his voting base by getting African American Democrats to vote for him, giving him the advantage.

Cochran demonstrated that staying in power is more important than what's best for the people and that he will do anything he needs to do to get re-elected. There is evidence to show that Cochran's campaign, along with establishment Republicans and some establishment Democrats, advertised directly to Mississippi's African-American Democrats to get them to vote in the primary against McDaniel.

There were radio and TV commercials that told the poor people in largely African-American counties that if McDaniel was elected they would all lose their welfare and food stamps. Fliers, (like the one below) allegedly made up by Cochran's campaign and funded by establishment Republicans and Democrats alike, were distributed through those same counties. Notice the “code word.”

The race baiting worked. It appears Cochran picked up about 25,000 extra votes from crossover Democrats. Still he won by just under 7000 votes. The most troubling part of this whole thing is that establishment Republicans (like John McCain and Mitch McConnell, actually assisted with getting Democrat votes for Cochran because they obviously see Tea Party candidates as a threat to their livelihood. When a Republican candidate promises welfare and food stamps and his colleagues in Washington get Democrats to help out with his election where is the integrity of the election? For that matter, where is the integrity of the Republicans in general?

Of course I know that politician and integrity are oxymorons. But blatant disregard of the platform and the people simply to get re-elected is pathetic. And race baiting African-American Democrats to do it is even worse.

A Republican who promises food stamps and welfare to Democrat voters to get them to vote against their Republican opponent is no Republican. Thad Cochran will retain his seat (unless McDaniel decides to run as a write-in in November, which he is being encouraged to do.) But at what cost? Cochran has proved he has no integrity and those fellow Republicans who assisted him proved the same thing about themselves. People like Cochran and his cronies are the reason I'm a conservative but not a Republican.

Interestingly, that same Republican establishment who helped Cochran steal the election from Chris McDaniel, also helped U.S. Rep. James Lankford win the Senate nomination over House Speaker T.W. Shannon, who is an African-American conservative. They didn't use the same tactics to ensure Lankford's win. I wonder why they didn't get African-American Democrats in Oklahoma to vote against Shannon? I also wonder if those Democrats who voted for Cochran understand that the same people who persuaded them to vote for Cochran are the ones who got people to vote against Shannon? 

From John Cochran to John Boehner, from John McCain to Lindsay Graham, from Susan Collins to Olympia Snowe, I'm getting fed up with Republicans who have crossed over from conservatism to the dark side of progressivism and who will sell their very soul to win an election, people be damned. It's why I will support Tea Party candidates any chance I get.  

Do People Really Believe The IRS?

Let me see if I have this straight. If not - someone please correct me.

On June 3, 2011, Representative Dave Camp, (R-MI) sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, informing him that the House Ways and Means Committee would be investigating alleged selective enforcement of tax laws and hinted that the IRS had been targeting conservative advocacy groups applying for 501(c)(4) status.

According to the new IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, 10 days after the letter was sent to Shulman, Lois Lerner's computer hard drive crashed and all of her e-mails were "lost" and "unrecoverable," much to the disagreement of IT specialists around the country. Only it wasn't all of Lerner's e-mails that were lost. It was only those during the time period in question and only those that went to addresses outside the IRS. Her internal e-mails were still there. Things that make you go "Hmmmmm."

Several other IRS officials also suffered mysterious hard-drive crashes in the days after the IRS received the letter. Those e-mails are also "lost and unrecoverable."

Fast forward to May 22, 2013. Lois Lerner was called to testify before the House Oversight Committee. Before she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights she made a statement.

“I have not done anything wrong,” Lerner said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

Then she told the committee that on the advice of her counsel she would not answer any of their questions. Is it me? How many people who have done nothing wrong hire an attorney and invoke their Fifth Amendment rights? (OK, maybe in this day and age that's pretty common but it's still odd that she'd declare her innocence then plead the Fifth.

It has now come to light that the IRS had a contract with an email archiving company, Sonasoft. It is rumored that they cancelled the contract about 30 days after Lois Lerner's hard drive crashed. Coincidence? Maybe. But certainly one that casts suspicions on the honesty and integrity of the IRS.

Fast forward again to June 23, 2014. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified, rather arrogantly, before the committee. Representative Trey Gowdy, (R-SC), a former and very successful prosecutor for the State of South Carolina. Gowdy is not one with which to be toyed.

Gowdy: “Well, I’m going to help you with it. Spoliation of the evidence is when a party fails to preserve evidence, there’s a negative inference that the jury can draw, from their failure to preserve the evidence. You with me? If you destroy documents, the jury can infer that those documents weren’t going to be good for you. If you fail to keep documents, the jury can infer that those documents were not going to be good for you. You’ve heard the phrase spoliation of evidence haven’t you?

Koskinen: “No, I can’t recall ever hearing that.”

Gowdy: “It’s true in administrative hearings, civil hearings, criminal hearings.”

Koskinen: “I practiced law once 45 years ago, gave it up for Lent one year, never went back.”

Gowdy: “Well let me tell you what you would have found had you stuck with it. When a party has a duty to preserve evidence or records, and they fail to do so, there is a negative inference that is drawn from their failure to preserve the evidence. It’s common sense, right? If you destroy something, the jury has a right to infer that whatever you destroyed would not have been good for you. Or else every litigant would destroy whatever evidence was detrimental to them. Agreed?”

Koskinen: “I’m not sure I think if you destroy the evidence and people could prove it, it wouldn’t be a good thing for your defense.”

Gowdy: “Well, no it’s worse than that. The jury can draw and they’re instructed, they can draw a negative inference.”

Koskinen: “Alright.”

Gowdy: If a taxpayer is being sued by the IRS administratively, civilly, or prosecuted criminally, and they fail to keep documents, the jury can draw a negative inference from the fact that they didn’t keep receipts or emails or documents. So if it’s true and applies to a taxpayer, it ought to apply to the IRS as well. Agree?

Koskinen: “Is this a trial? Is this a jury? Is that what you’re…”

Gowdy: “I say administrative, civil or criminal. I say if you want to, if you want to go down that road, I’m happy to go down there with you. In fact I’m glad you mentioned it. You’ve already said multiple times today that there was no evidence you found of any criminal wrongdoing. I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you’ve evaluated.”

Koskinen: “I’ve not looked at any statutes.”

Gowdy: Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens there’s no criminal wrongdoing, if you don’t even know what statute to look at?”

Koskinen: “Because I see no evidence that anybody consciously…”

Gowdy: “But how would you know what elements of the crime existed? You don’t even know what statutes are in play. I’m going to ask you again: What statutes have you evaluated?”

Koskinen: “Uh, I think you can rely on common sense. Nothing I have seen…”

Gowdy: “Common sense. Instead of the criminal code, you want to rely on common sense. No, Mr. Koskinen, you can shake your head all you want to Commissioner, you have said today that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. And I’m asking you what criminal statute you have reviewed to reach that conclusion?”

Koskinen: “I’ve reviewed no criminal statute.”

Gowdy: Alright, so you don’t have any idea whether there’s any criminal conduct or not, because you don’t know the elements of the offense.”

Koskinen: “I’ve seen no evidence of wrongdoing.”

Gowdy: “Oh well, that’s very different than no evidence of criminal misconduct Commissioner.”

Koskinen: “It seems to me that if you haven’t done wrongdoing, it would be pretty hard to argue that you had some criminal violation if you didn’t…”

Gowdy: “Well what did Lois Lerner mean when she said that ‘perhaps the FEC will save the day’?”

Koskinen: “I have no idea.”

Gowdy: “What did she mean when she said that ‘we need a project but we need to be careful that it doesn’t appear to be per se political’? You don’t think that’s a potential violation of 18242”?

Koskinen: “I have no idea if.”

Gowdy” “Because you haven’t looked at 18242. You don’t have any idea, Commissioner. You don’t have any idea whether there’s any criminal wrongdoing, or not.”

Koskinen: “With regard to the production of the evidence, the production of Lois Lerner’s emails, I have seen no evidence of wrongdoing. What else, what else…”

Gowdy: “If there were, that would be a separate criminal offense.”

Koskinen: “What else went on with Lois lerner, I’ve said in the past…”

Gowdy: “So what you’re saying is that you don’t have any idea whether she engaged in criminal wrongdoing, you’re just saying that you did not engage in any with respect to the emails.”

Koskinen: “I haven’t seen any wrongdoing with regard to the production of Lois Lerner’s emails.”

Gowdy: “You are not saying there was no criminal wrongdoing with respect to the targeting of conservative groups. I want to be very clear, you’re not saying that.”

Koskinen: “Made no judgments.”

Gowdy: "So you disagree with the President when he says that there’s not a smidgen of corruption.”

Koskinen: “There are people who have been making judgments both sides about whetheer there were…”

Gowdy: “And you know what? I’m not one of those. I’m just simply saying we will never know because you didn’t keep the evidence. The evidence was spoliated. And whether it was negligent, whether it was intentional, whether it’s reckless, we still don’t have the evidence, Commissioner.”

Koskinen: “Well you have the evidence that there is no emails from the White House. You have the Treasury emails, so the basic premise that this was an argument in a conspiracy driven by the White House…”

Gowdy: “No sir, you’re wrong about that. You’re wrong about that. You’re repeating a talking point from our colleagues on the other side that we’re obsessed with the White House. It was Jay Carney who perpetuated the myth that it was rogue agents in Ohio. It wasn’t any of us. Was that accurate? Was that first initial line of defense that this is just two rogue agents in Ohio? Was that accurate Commissioner?”

Koskinen: “Not that I know of.”

Gowdy: “Alright, so that wasn’t accurate and that came from the White House. Who said there’s not a smidgeon of corruption? Who said that, Commissioner?”

Koskinen: “Uh, my understanding it was the President.

Gowdy: “Uh, it was the President. So that was Jay Carney and the President both inserting themselves into the IRS scandal. And you want to blame us for bringing the White House into it?

Koskinen: “I haven’t blamed you at all I…”

Gowdy: “You just did, Commissioner, ya’ just did.”

Koskinen: “It’s a good argument. All I said was the White House has revealed there were no Lois Lerner emails, Treasury has given you all of their emails and to the extent that uh the argument was that Lois Lerner was conspiring and emailing back and forth, thus far I haven’t seen any emails…”

Gowdy: “You can be engaged in a conspiracy that doesn’t include the White House.

Time was called on Gowdy - too soon, it seems. Trey Gowdy knows how to handle a hostile or non-cooperative witness. Having won at least 100 cases without a loss - he knows what he's doing. They should have let him continue.

I chatted with a liberal acquaintance earlier today about this. He said that the IRS could have committed illegal acts but that this entire thing is a waste of time and money. "After all," he said... "Bush had an e-mail controversy in 2007 about the firing of some U.S. Attorneys." It really has nothing to do with today's controversy except for what he followed up with. 

"My main point is, when it's "not my guy" doing a thing, it's suddenly horrible and prosecutable. When it's "my guy" doing it, then there are excuses, if you even bother to be aware.

Incidentally, nothing ever happened to Karl Rove or Bush or anyone in his administration over the thing I referenced. So if you want to set a baseline precedent, then apparently the correct level of punishment is "shrug."

I can agree with him on the fact that punishments should be equal for equal crimes. And I admit that in 2007, I was not really politically active. I got politically active in 2008 when Hillary, not Obama, was running for President. I became anti-Obama after he won the nomination and promised to "fundamentally change America." But my political activism spawned with Hillary.

Anyway - instead of admitting they did something wrong, the IRS has spent the last two years first denying, then justifying, then again denying wrongdoing. If only they'd have admitted it and moved on...

Instead we are buried in an investigation that may or may not conclude in a positive manner. I only want the truth. I think that's what the investigation should uncover. But with the stall tactics used by the Obama administration these days, I might die waiting...

Is He Ever Responsible For Anything?

On October 21st of 2011, President Obama announced to the world his intention of ending the war in Iraq and bringing all the troops home. Military leaders (and veterans nation wide) cringed at him telling our enemies when we were going to be leaving and telling them we wouldn't be leaving a contingency force behind to maintain security. We all knew what would eventually happen in Iraq without those troops remaining. But Obama refused to sign a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government because he had no intention of leaving ground forces there to assist the Iraqis.

"As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end — for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011."

"As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities. Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq. And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security."

"A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward."

"So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over."

About a year later, in a debate, Mitt Romney challenged the President on the status of forces agreement that didn't happen. The President reiterated that he chose not to do that.

ROMNEY: "Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, there should have been a status of forces agreement."

OBAMA: "No. What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down, but that certainly would not help us."

With Iraq falling to terrorists at a rapid pace and the Iraqi government calling on President Obama to provide some air strikes against the invaders, the President has decided shift the responsibility of who made the decision not to leave troops behind away from himself. He now says it was the Iraqis who made the decision and that he had no real choice in the matter.

"Keep in mind, that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces. We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is that they are provided immunity, since they are being invited by the sovereign government there so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense, if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they’re not somehow called before a foreign court."

"That’s a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity. And so I think it is important, though, to recognize that despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning multi-sectarian democracy inside the country."

As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter: "There you go again." President Obama just can't accept the responsibility for things that make him look bad.

"Keep in mind, that wasn’t a decision made by me." Really, Mr. President? It was back in 2011, before Iraq went to Hell in a handbasket.

The only thing I've ever seen Obama take credit for is the Navy SEALs killing Osama Bin Laden. You know - something he didn't actually do himself. Oh - and he took credit for Obamacare - at least he has so far. But as bad as it is it probably won't be long before he's blaming the Representatives who put it together and sent it to him for signature.

Just once in his Presidency I'd like to see the man stand up and say "I screwed up and it's my own fault." But those words in that particular order are not in a narcissist's vocabulary.

Whose Side Is Obama On?

Once again the Obama administration has slapped Israel in the face. In the last few days the Obama administration has announced its intention to establish ties with the newly sworn-in Fatah-Hamas unity government. Basically the U.S. is giving its approval to terrorism. Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization yet the Obama administration wants to recognize them as a legitimate government and work with them. Remember - this is an administration who does not negotiate with terrorists... unless they're holding a U.S.military deserter and we can release five of the world's top terrorist leaders to get him back.

Frankly I'm surprised that Benjamin Netanyahu still communicates with Obama since it seems Obama sells Israel down the river at every opportunity. Despite Israel being our closest ally, Obama has been doing everything he can to support the Palestinians and to get Israel to give up part of their own country to Islam.

Israel is now saying that the U.S. is sanctioning terrorism.

“If the US administration wants to advance peace, it should be calling on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to end his pact with Hamas and return to peace talks with Israel. Instead it is enabling Abbas to believe that it is acceptable to form a government with a terrorist organization,” Israeli officials said recently to the media.

Since he was elected in 2008, President Obama has been working to appease Islam even while we were fighting two wars against radical Muslim terrorists. For whatever reason, many Americans still want to believe that Islam, a combination of religion and politics, is a "religion of peace." It is far from that. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, the radical faction is growing stronger and more violent. The recent assault on Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), about which we are doing nothing, demonstrates that very well. Iraq will soon be a caliphate in which they can train new terrorists and launch attacks worldwide. And we're not only allowing them to attain it - we're helping them Many of their weapons are U.S. made.

I can't figure out whether the administration's (and many liberals in general) attitude toward Islam is naivete or deliberate ignorance. Islam is not our friend just as it is not a religion of peace. Muslims all over the Middle East are killing Christians simply because they are Christian and not Muslim. Christians worldwide are appalled and outraged by these barbaric acts. Yet President Obama, who professes to be a Christian himself, has very little to say about it. 

President Obama does seem intent on helping Islam in any way he can. His release of the five Taliban commanders, comparable to five Generals in the US, for one suspected deserter did nothing more than aid the enemy. And even though John Kerry assures us that these guys won't return to the battlefield - my money is on the one of them who already said that's what he's going to do. I guess we should believe Kerry over the lying terrorist but hey - call me stubborn.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said recently that the White House is in panic mode because of the backlash they received over the trade for Bowe Bergdahl.

"I think they are in a state of utter panic," Giuliani said. "They are saying all these men (Bergdahl's fellow platoon members) are liars. These are men who did serve honorably. Who did put their lives at risk. Some of them are decorated. And, there's a lot of them who are saying the same thing."

He said Bergdahl should have been recovered but "at what price?"

"The price that we paid for Bergdahl might have been too high a price to pay, even if you were trying to save a Medal of Honor winner. We gave up five of the worst people in Guantanamo," he said.

"To take a guy who left under questionable circumstances, where there are allegations of desertion, and to put his family in the White House, and to make it look like this great hero is coming back, it made it much more difficult. They're the ones who made the situation for Bergdahl much worse," he said.

I must agree. The trade of five murderous terrorists for one questionable soldier, who quite possibly was in the hands of the terrorists of his own volition, will most likely go down in history as Obama's greatest screw-up. If and when America is facing even one of those five on the battlefield (or suffers an attack orchestrated by one or more of them) then their release will become a complete failure for the Obama administration.

Obama better hope Kerry is right. But with his track record - Kerry isn't the most reliable person to bet on...

Time For A Name Change Oklahoma...!

I wrote about this the other day but a new bit of knowledge made me want to write about it again.

The federal government, liberals and the main stream media are trying to bully the Washington Redskins into changing their name because "it's disparaging to Native Americans." Even though the vast majority of Native Americans don't care about it one way or another it's the principle, according to those who are making all the noise.

Liberals seem to enjoy screaming loudly about small things that are important only to a small group of people while pretending they are representing all Americans. Harry Reid made the Redskins' name a topic on the Senate floor. We're fighting a war in Afghanistan, Iraq is being overrun by brutal terrorists (about which we're doing absolutely nothing), our President is releasing some of the world's most dangerous terrorists from Gitmo, our economy is horrible, unemployment is still high, the American labor force is shrinking, oil will soon be skyrocketing if the terrorists succeed in taking Iraq, etc., etc., etc. And the name of a privately owned football franchise is a topic on the Senate floor. I would find it unbelievable if it wasn't for the person who introduced it.

The U.S. Patent and Trade Office recently revoked the Redskins' trademark rights because they also said it disparages Native Americans. They didn't effectively change the team by doing that. They made it easier for more people to exploit the Redskins' name and logo because thanks to the government's decree the Redskins no longer own those things and therefore cannot control who uses them.

I wrote the other day about other sports teams with names that will eventually need to be changed because they might offend someone somewhere. I'm writing about it again today because of something I learned yesterday.

It's time for the great state of Oklahoma to change their name. The name Oklahoma is derived from Choctaw words that mean "red people." If a privately owned business can be forced by the government to change their name then certainly Oklahoma should be forced to change theirs. Every time you say the word Oklahoma you're actually saying "red people." That's got to bother someone somewhere.

I'm actually surprised no one has claimed that giving a state a Native American name is actually cultural appropriation. After all -when you say Oklahoma you're speaking Choctaw. And you can bet no one asked the Choctaw nation if it was OK to use their words and speak their language.

According to http://www.americanindiansource.com, there are 28 states whose names are either Native American words or derived from Native American words. We're all going to be confused after they change the names of over half of the states in the country.

Alabama -Indian for tribal town, later a tribe (Alabamas or Alibamons) of the Creek confederacy.
Alaska -Russian version of Aleutian (Eskimo) word, alakshak, for "peninsula," "great lands," or "land that is not an island."
Arizona -Spanish version of Pima Indian word for "little spring place," or Aztec arizuma, meaning "silver-bearing."
Arkansas -French variant of Quapaw, a Siouan people meaning "downstream people."
Connecticut -From Mohican and other Algonquin words meaning "long river place."
Delaware -Named for Lord De La Warr, early governor of Virginia; first applied to river, then to Indian tribe (Lenni-Lenape), and the state.
Hawaii -Possibly derived from native word for homeland, Hawaiki or Owhyhee.
Idaho -A coined name with an invented Indian meaning: "gem of the mountains;" originally suggested for the Pike's Peak mining territory (Colorado), then applied to the new mining territory of the Pacific Northwest. Another theory suggests Idaho may be a Kiowa Apache term for the Comanche.
Illinois -French for Illini or land of Illini, Algonquin word meaning men or warriors.
Indiana -Means "land of the Indians."
Iowa -Indian word variously translated as "one who puts to sleep" or "beautiful land."
Kansas -Sioux word for "south wind people."
Kentucky -Indian word variously translated as "dark and bloody ground," "meadow land" and "land of tomorrow."
Massachusetts -From Indian tribe named after "large hill place" identified by Capt. John Smith as being near Milton, Mass.
Michigan -From Chippewa words mici gama meaning "great water," after the lake of the same name.
Minnesota -From Dakota Sioux word meaning "cloudy water" or "sky-tinted water" of the Minnesota River.
Mississippi -Probably Chippewa; mici zibi, "great river" or "gathering-in of all the waters." Also: Algonquin word, "Messipi."
Missouri -An Algonquin Indian term meaning "river of the big canoes."
Nebraska -From Omaha or Otos Indian word meaning "broad water" or "flat river," describing the Platte River.
North & South Dakota -Dakota is Sioux for friend or ally.
Ohio -Iroquois word for "fine or good river."
Oklahoma -Choctaw coined word meaning red man, proposed by Rev. Allen Wright, Choctaw-speaking Indian, said: Okla humma is red people.
Tennessee -Tanasi was the name of Cherokee villages on the Little Tennessee River. From 1784 to 1788 this was the State of Franklin, or Frankland.
Texas -Variant of word used by Caddo and other Indians meaning friends or allies, and applied to them by the Spanish in eastern Texas. Also written texias, tejas, teysas.
Utah -From a Navajo word meaning upper, or higher up, as applied to a Shoshone tribe called Ute.
Wisconsin -An Indian name, spelled Ouisconsin and Mesconsing by early chroniclers. Believed to mean "grassy place" in Chippewa. Congress made it Wisconsin.
Wyoming -The word was taken from Wyoming Valley, Pa., which was the site of an Indian massacre and became widely known by Campbell's poem, "Gertrude of Wyoming." In Algonquin it means "large prairie place."

I'm not even going to get into the various cities, towns and attractions with Native American names. It would take all day to list them and all day to read this post. But it's clear we need to make some changes in this country lest some person be offended.

Oh - I did a little research and found out the name Reid is Scottish. Since ol' Harry is an American I'm sure I can find some Scotsman out there who is offended by Harry. So, Mr. Majority Leader...  what is your new name going to be? Don't worry - I know people who would be happy to give you some suggestions...

Did The CIA Lie About WMDs In Iraq?

Remember back in 2005 when an official CIA report said there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq?

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, then the CIA's top weapons inspector.

Liberals and the main stream media used this information to attack George W. Bush as a liar and a war monger. They called for his head, his impeachment, and for him to tried as a war criminal. They called him stupid, which I found rather funny since according to their logic, a stupid man got Congress to vote to go to war. If he was so stupid what did that say about Congress?

Interestingly, just a few days ago ISIS terrorists took control of "Saddam Hussein's premier chemical weapons facility" and the Wall Street Journal says there are still old chemical weapons there.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Sunni extremists in Iraq have occupied what was once Saddam Hussein's premier chemical-weapons production facility, a complex that still contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department and other U.S. government officials said.

U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.

So how, exactly, did those weapons get there when the CIA said there were none? More from the WSJ:

During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Hussein used the Muthanna complex to make chemical weapons, including sarin, mustard gas, and VX (a nerve agent), according the Iraq Study Group, which conducted the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of the war.

The Iraq Study group did find chemical munitions at Muthanna but determined that inspections by United Nations Special Commission, or Unscom, had ensured the facility was dismantled and remaining chemical stocks militarily useless and sealed in bunkers.

"Two wars, sanctions and Unscom oversight reduced Iraqi's premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities," the Iraq Study Group's 2004 report concluded.

So did the CIA simply overlook the weapons that were there or did they mislead the American public by saying "there are no WMDs" because they were sealed in bunkers? Sealed or not, if they were there Bush was correct and the liberals and main stream media owe him and the rest of us an apology.

Notice they (the liberals and main stream media) aren't saying much about the weapons that may still be there. And if they do it's as if all the denial never took place. I read an article yesterday that said "any residual chemicals at the plant would be impossible to use because they are believed to have been sealed under concrete or rendered unusable by international forces about a decade ago." That would be in 2004, when the CIA inspectors were looking for them. Did they have them sealed and lie to the public? Why isn't the main stream media all over this demanding answers from the CIA? 

Wait - what am I saying? The main stream media try to prove Bush told the truth? In the words of the late, great Buddy Holly..."That'll be the day."

Minimum Wage Jobs For The First Daughters...?

In an interview with Parade Magazine recently, President and Mrs. Obama said they would like their daughters to have some experience working minimum wage jobs.

“Oh yeah,” the First Lady responded when asked about it. “I think every kid needs to get a taste of what it’s like to do that real hard work.”

“We are looking for opportunities for them to feel as if going to work and getting a paycheck is not always fun, not always stimulating, not always fair,” President Obama added. “But that’s what most folks go through every single day.”

Meanwhile, in the real world, according to TheWrap.com, it has been confirmed that First Daughter Malia Obama landed her first job... working in Hollywood as a production assistant on Halle Berry's new sci-fi series "Extant."

According to TheWrap, Malia was in Hollywood recently working on the TV set. Citing an anonymous insider TheWrap reports that “She helped with computer shop alignments and the director also let her slate a take."

Apparently this job was only for one day and no one knows whether or not she was paid for it. I would guess probably not. And one would wonder how even the daughter of the President would get the opportunity to work on a TV set - until it is discovered that Steven Spielberg is the producer (and is also a very staunch Obama supporter.)

I'm sure some people will say I'm only posting this because I hate Obama, I'm a racist, I hate Obama's kids (for the same reason) or I'm a sexist (or all of the above.) For them I'll just sadly and slowly shake my head.

This post is about the silliness of the Obamas saying they want their children to get minimum wage jobs. Sure they do. Just like Bill and Hillary wanted Chelsea to do. Or for that matter, even George W. and Laura Bush (although of the three sets of parents, I would believe a statement like that from the Bush's before the Clintons or the Obamas.)

I don't begrudge Malia working on a TV set with Halle Berry. What 15 year old wouldn't jump at that chance - even without pay? There should certainly be some perks to being the child of the President of the United States. You know - besides jet-setting around the world on luxurious vacations on the taxpayers' bill. Of course - the girls can't exactly say no when their parents tell them they're going to Europe for a week or two. And why would they?

Malia Obama apparently has expressed some desire toward film making and this job gave her a taste of what it could be like. She was said to have commented "My first time. This is a big deal!"

Good for you, Malia. I hope you enjoyed your day. Now go back home and tell your parents not to make silly statements in interviews trying to make themselves sound like they're in touch with the average American. I don't think they have ever been there.

Is Journalism Dead In America?

Have you watched the news lately? Depending on which station you watch, you may or may not know what's going on in the world.

We all know what the Kardashians have been up to. We know which celebrities are in rehab or which one has recently been arrested. If you watch the three mainstream media networks you hear that President Obama is doing an outstanding job with nearly everything. His health care law is wonderful. The economy is coming back, albeit not quite as quickly as it could be but it's on the rise. Unemployment is down. The President is making Putin look like a wimp, Al Qaeda has been decimated and the IRS doesn't have even a "smidgen of corruption." And Benghazi, while tragic, was ages ago. In fact - the Republicans in Congress should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to investigate these non-stories.

Then we step into the real world. Like them or not, FOX lives in the real world and reports real news - much of which you won't hear about if you only watch the other networks. Oh, now and then you'll get some true reporting from one of them but the stories are usually gone from the airwaves after only one airing.

In May, ABC and the Washington Post polled Americans on their feelings about how President Obama is handling things and his leadership abilities. The poll showed 52% of Americans have lost confidence in Obama's leadership abilities while only 42% still have faith in him. The latest polls show Obama's approval rating at 31% and disapproval rating at 53%. Where is the mainstream media on this? They're ignoring it. Not one mainstream media outlet covered it in the last week. Only NBC's Chuck Todd has said anything about it and his words are surprising. "The Obama Presidency is over," Todd said the other day. Imagine that. I can't help but wonder if Todd will be looking for a job soon.

Criticize them if you will but FOX is the only network that covers all the stories, debates both sides of each issue and invites people from both sides of the aisle for discussion. They are criticized for being conservative - which is pretty funny coming from the liberal, left-wing media who very openly support Obama and won't report anything negative about him.

Critics cite Hannity, O'Reilly and Megan Kelly as being biased reporters because they have conservative views. That's because they don't understand (or choose to ignore) the fact that those three aren't news reporters. They're opinion talk show hosts. That's what they do. Calling them news anchors would be like calling Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews a news anchor. It just ain't so.

After 20 years with the network CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson recently resigned her position citing the network's liberal bias and lack of interest in investigative reporting. Hard to believe her story, huh? Liberal bias and a lack of interest in reporting the truth is more like it. I'm sure liberals will say she is simply a closeted right-winger.

There are news reports that the terrorist group ISIS has seized control of a Saddam Hussein era chemical weapons plant - you know - the one that didn't exist. Of the three mainstream networks, only CBS is reporting on it and saying that any residual chemicals at the plant would be impossible to use because they "are believed to have been sealed under concrete or rendered unusable by international forces about a decade ago." You remember - a decade ago - AFTER Bush said Hussein had chemical weapons and then was criticized by the left for "lying to them." (Shaking my head...)

Neither ABC or NBC have a single word about the chemical weapons plant. I guess terrorists finding a chemical weapons facility that may or may not contain chemical weapons is not really a news story for them. Or maybe they're ignoring it because they'd have to actually admit there were chemical weapons plants in Iraq even though they branded Bush a liar.

Now let's talk about the IRS "losing" two years of e-mails. You've heard about that, right? How the IRS last week told Congress that the two years of Lois Lerner's e-mails to and from outside agencies, likely including White House officials, are magically gone because of a crashed hard drive? And even though all government computers have multiple backup systems, and each agency has their own server with backups (meaning every e-mail to or from Lerner to outside agencies is backed up on those agency's servers as well) the IRS and many liberals are content to say "They're gone. End of story."

Yesterday we learned that at least six other IRS employees, including one who made over 20 visits to the White House during the time in question, have also suffered the loss of pertinent e-mails from the same time period. Nothing suspicious there, right?

To their credit, CNN is actually reporting on the lost e-mails as strange and unusual. They have questions of their own they'd like answered including why the IRS requires citizens to maintain at least three years of tax records but they only keep their own e-mails for six months then purge the system. And why they recycle computer hard drives to get rid of any trace of information. And why Lerner's internal e-mails are still available but only those to outside agencies and/or politicians are gone. Nope - not a smidgen of corruption there.

The rest of the mainstream media pretty much ignores the story. When they do report on it it's usually to criticize the Republicans for continuing the investigation or to criticize FOX News for still reporting on it.

Journalism may not be completely dead in this country but it's dying quickly. And since our universities are overrun with liberal professors I don't see any hope for its future. Where are Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein when we need them?

But be of good cheer. Nancy Pelosi says she believes the IRS' story that the e-mails were lost due to a crashed hard drive. (I'd be surprised if she actually understands what that means.) Pelosi feels the next step is to drop the investigation and buy the IRS a new computer system. Yeah... she said that.

Glad I Didn't Go To Harvard Or Princeton...

First Lady Michelle Obama is very proud of her degrees from Princeton and Harvard. She mentioned them just last week when talking about how she didn't know how to feed her children properly, even with degrees from those two institutions. It seems there's something else the First Lady didn't learn in school - even with two degrees.

On Wednesday, speaking to attendees of a naturalization ceremony, our ivy league graduate First Lady said “It’s amazing that just a few feet from here where I’m standing are the signatures of the 56 Founders who put their names on a Declaration that changed the course of history,” referring to the Declaration of Independence. “And like the 50 of you, none of them were born American – they became American.”

Now I could go out on a limb and believe that what Mrs. Obama meant was that because the United States of America wasn't officially a country until the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 (or after winning the war for independence, which officially ended in 1783) even though the founders were born here in what would become the United States, technically they weren't born citizens because the country itself wasn't officially here. She might mean that. And I could maybe be persuaded to believe that if she had followed up with that explanation for her words. But she didn't follow up. And I don't believe that was her meaning.

I'm convinced that although Benjamin Franklin was born in Pennsylvania, John Adams was born in Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison were born in Virginia, the First Lady believes they were all born in Great Britain and came here on ships. You learn that in Junior High School history. Maybe even earlier these days.

Maybe Mrs. Obama knows the truth but it is her way of "rewriting our history" as she once stated needs to occur. Telling a group of naturalized citizens that our founding fathers had to naturalize as well is simply ridiculous and misleading.

In other news, the President today told the innocent Iraqi people who are being hunted down and slaughtered by the Sunni terrorist group ISIS they are on their own. According to President Obama, the United States is not sending troops to assist, they will not perform air strikes as requested by the Iraqi government, and they will not take sides in a war between two Islamic factions. Then he said he was sending about 300 military advisers to train and advise the Iraqi army in their quest to defeat the Sunni terrorists.

Mr. President - just a hint... if you're sending military advisers to train the Iraqi army - you have chosen sides - unless you're going to send an equal number to ISIS. And if you've already sent 250 troops to the embassy in Baghdad and you're sending in another 300 as advisers, you're putting boots on the ground.  Maybe it's not 10,000 but it's still boots on the ground. Just sayin'...

It's shameful that the country we fought to liberate from a tyrant who committed genocide on his own people is now falling to a terrorist group that will ultimately kill more people that Saddaam Hussein and we are going to sit by and watch it happen. The USA is no longer a peacemaker in the world. We're a pacifist country content to watch others die as long as it doesn't effect us. For the second time in the Obama administration I'm ashamed of my country.

Freedom Of Speech Takes Another Hit - Liberals Are You Paying Attention?

Freedom of speech has suffered another defeat in Washington. It seems now that you only have freedom of speech if your speech or expression, or the name of your business franchise, offends someone. It used to be that no matter how much someone might not like what you said, if it wasn't illegal to say (such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or stating you were going to kill a politician) then those offended by it simply had to deal with it. It seems those days are changing.

Five Native Americans have succeeded in getting the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a branch of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, to revoke the official trademark of the Washington Redskins football team after the owner, Dan Snyder, refused to change the name that has become highly controversial in the last few years.

So what does this mean? What it really means is that technically the Washington Redskins no longer have legal control over their team name and symbols. Anyone else can now use them as names and/or symbols of their businesses, organizations and teams. They didn't stop the football team from using the name and symbols. What they effectively did was open opportunity for more people to use it. Hats off to the Patent and Trade Office for encouraging free enterprise!

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012, Native Americans (including Alaska Natives) numbered 5.2 million. In a country whose population is 317 million, that's .016%. Of those 5.2 million people, a total of 5 filed suit against the Redskins. That would be .00000096% of Native Americans and .00000001% of the national population. Yet liberals everywhere took up the cause and a tiny minority wins a tiny victory.

So can someone please explain to me how the name "Redskins" is disparaging to anyone? Maybe it was 150 years ago, when it was used quite frequently by western explorers and settlers who battled against the Native Americans. When is the last time you heard a Native American referred to as a redskin? And even if someone is offended (which, by the way, the overwhelming majority of Native Americans are not) - why is this issue so important to the United States government (and to the left in general) that it is discussed on the Senate floor and by the President of the United States? Don't they have real issues that are more important?

A Wickipedia article concerning the term "redskin" quotes the following: The term derives from the use of "red" color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, and one of the earliest known citations of its use is by a Native American called Chief Black Thunder in which he stated:"My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me".

The lyrics for the fight song for the Washington Redskins, played at the beginning of every game, are as follows:

Hail to the Redskins! 

Hail Victory! 

Braves on the Warpath! 

Fight for old D.C.! 

Run or pass and score -- we want a lot more! 

Beat 'em, Swamp 'em, 

Touchdown! -- Let the points soar! 

Fight on, fight on 'Til you have won 

Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

Hail to the Redskins! 

Hail Victory! 

Braves on the Warpath! 

Fight for old D.C.! 

Maybe it's just me but I don't see anything offensive in the lyrics. They are meant to inspire and cheer the warriors on the team. Personally I think we are becoming a nation of crybabies whose feelings get hurt over things that shouldn't matter.

I guess if we're going to begin reigning in freedom of speech for sports teams' names we better get busy. We need to change the names of the following teams immediately:

Kansas City Chiefs (definitely offensive to Native Americans)

Phoenix Cardinals (possibly offensive to birds and Catholics)

San Francisco 49ers (offensive to the families of those brave men working the gold mines)

New England Patriots (offensive to those in America who have no patriotism)

Chicago Bears (offensive to other animals who were not selected)

Oakland Raiders (offensive to real pirates)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (as above)

Green Bay Packers (possibly offensive to meat packers - and the fans call themselves cheeseheads...?)

Minnesota Vikings (offensive to real vikings)

New Orleans Saints (offensive to Catholics)

New York Giants (offensive to big people)

Carolina Panthers (possibly offensive to the New Black Panther Party)

How about baseball teams? Let's see what we can change there...

Atlanta Braves (offensive to Native Americans)

New York Yankees (the term "yankee" might be offensive to Southern Americans)

Cincinnati Reds (Reds eludes to Native Americans)

Chicago White Sox (the term "white" could be offensive to other ethnic groups)

Cleveland Indians (offensive to Native Americans - and many baseball fans)

Kansas City Royals (they think they're better than everyone else)

Los Angeles Angels (possibly offensive to religious and spiritual people of all kinds)

Minnesota Twins (offensive to twins and to Geminis)

Pittsburgh Pirates

San Francisco Giants...

And how about a few college names we need to change?

Notre Dame Fighting Irish (offensive to those Irishmen who don't always fight - and possibly to leprechauns)

Florida State Seminoles (again offensive to Native Americans)

Alfred University Saxons (could be offensive to the British)

Alvernia University Crusaders (potentially offensive to Muslims)

Arkansas Razorbacks (also offensive to Muslims)

Arkansas Tech University Wonder Boys (gay slur?)

Auburn University at Montgomery Senators (should be offensive to everyone)

Bethany College (Kansas) Swedes (need I say it?)

I could go on. There are thousands of sports teams in this country and probably millions of people who could find something offensive about one or more of the teams' names. It's ridiculous. And what's the point? No one is ever going to be satisfied with everything all the time. It's an impossibility.

I would like liberals to understand something. Every time you whine about something someone else is doing or saying, and the result is that action or speech is outlawed. you are removing your own freedom of speech as well. Just as in the case of Harry Reid doing away with the filibuster in the Senate, your efforts to control speech in this country will one day come back to bite you. Democrats won't be in charge of the government forever. And when it changes just remember who made all the overly restrictive rules...

Voting For Valid Reasons

When I'm in my car early in the morning (before 10) I listen to Mark Davis on WBAP out of Dallas. Mark is an articulate, well spoken conservative who listens to all points of view while maintaining intelligent dialogue with his callers. 

This morning when I turned it on he was having a conversation with a man who said he's a Democrat with some conservative values. He supports same sex marriage but not the legalization of drugs. He is pro-choice but fiscally conservative. He's against war but believes people have the right to own firearms. 

The man (a Texan himself) said he would vote for Rick Perry for President because he likes him. He also said he would vote for Hillary Clinton over Ted Cruz because he doesn't like Cruz. Mark Davis asked him what he thought would be different between a Cruz presidency and a Perry presidency and the man couldn't really answer except that he likes Perry and doesn't like Cruz.

The conversation went on for about 10 minutes before Davis moved on to his point for the segment. He talked about people voting for reasons that do not matter, such as skin color, gender, how "cool" they are, that it's "time for a black President or a female President," etc.

Historically it was a good day when Barack Obama was elected as the first African-American President. Just as it will be an historic day when a woman is elected President for the first time. But the candidate being black or being a woman is not a valid reason to elect the leader of the free world. Davis suggested that people follow his 3 point rule.

If you are going to support a candidate for President pick at least three important things he or she stands for and be able to articulate why you support them. That sounds like good advice. Things that are important should include national security, immigration control, fiscal responsibility, the economy and foreign policy. 

Notice I didn't say LGBT issues, abortion, gun control, or the gender of the candidate. Why? Because while those issues are important to many Americans, without the five I listed the others don't amount to a hill of beans. What difference is same sex marriage or abortion going to make if the country fails because of poor leadership? Gun control should actually be another consideration for voters because if we don't secure the borders and the economy fails people will be needing firearms more than ever to maintain the security of their homes and families.

When Obama was running for President many people voted for him because he's black. That is a fact. Some voted for him because he was cool. While others simply quoted his slogan - they wanted hope and change. (Normally when asked what change they wanted they were unable to articulate it other than "just change."

I've already heard some people, including CBS host Jane Pauley, express her feelings that Hillary should be the next President because "it's time for a woman." And while I have no problem with a qualified female President, I wouldn't vote for a woman, Republican or otherwise, simply because she's a woman. I will have to weigh her opinions and stances on important issues, just as I will weigh those of a male candidate.

Republicans need to win in November and they need to run a viable, conservative candidate in 2016. However, in my humble opinion there is one thing conservative voters need to stop doing. They need to stop abandoning candidates who do not make abortion and LGBT issues negative items in their campaigns. I'm not saying they should change their minds and be pro-everything. But those topics should not be a major campaign issue that would prevent a sound leader from being elected. Let's face it - this is 2014 and like it or not, same sex marriage and abortion are not going to go away simply by electing a conservative President. Even if conservatives won both Houses and the Presidency, they would be out of office in the next election if they made their priorities about doing away with those two things. Too many Americans are in favor of both. And there are more important issues for our nation's leaders to deal with.

Don't believe me? Take a look at all of the people who didn't like Romney and simply did not vote because of it. And look who we have in the White House... again.

I may get grief over my opinion but it won't be the first time, nor the last. As my blog title says - "the world according to me." To quote the great Dennis Miller...  "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

What Happened To The America We Knew And Loved?

I'm having trouble recognizing my country lately. The liberal progressive movement, with Barack Obama at the helm, is doing exactly what Obama said he was going to do back in 2008 - fundamentally changing America. Sadly - this change being effected is not good change.

There are those who believe in him who think his change is good. But I think that's only because it hasn't negatively affected them yet. Most will begin to feel the effects before he is out of office. And even if you don't feel anything personally, how can you watch some of the things that are going on and not be affected. (For a detailed explanation of effect and affect, see previous post.)

First and foremost there is Obama's release of five of the Taliban's top commanders, compared by some US military experts as being equal to the Joint Chiefs, for one (alleged) deserter. This was a bad deal all the way around. I don't care if the guy we were getting back was Stanley McChrystal - there is no way we should have released those five men.

Yesterday we learned that US military, law enforcement and intelligence personnel had affected the capture of Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the suspected mastermind of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, dead. The President held a press conference to tout his achievement (this time he did give some credit to the above agencies) and to praise the dedication of the three groups that worked together to get this guy.

"The fact that he is now in U.S. custody is a testament to the painstaking efforts of our military, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel," the President said. "Because of their courage and professionalism, this individual will now face the full weight of the American justice system."

Coming from a President who decides himself which laws he will enforce and which ones he won't - what, exactly, does that mean? He doesn't enforce our immigration laws. He doesn't hold the IRS accountable for their illegal actions, he doesn't enforce his own signature legislation in the Affordable Care Act, so now we're to believe terrorists, who have already been given Miranda rights, will face justice? Is an obese federal judge going to sit on him or something?

"It was the same painstaking efforts, courage and professionalism they gave in capturing the five Taliban commanders I released last week..."

OK - he didn't really say that second part. But he could have. Like others I find it amazing that this guy was captured just when the Obama administration needed something positive in the news having to do with foreign policy. It's almost as big a coincidence as the missing e-mails of Lois Lerner. But we all know how coincidences can happen.

Speaking of Lois Lerner - does anyone with a working brain believe the IRS' crashed computer story? Jay Carney does, apparently, but anyone else? I heard an IT person on the radio today (with experience in government computer systems) say that government computer systems have so many backups that Lois Lerner's e-mails had probably been copied and saved hundreds of times on hundred of different computer systems. The IRS knows this. In 1974, the left went crazy because there were 18 minutes of missing recordings on the Watergate tapes. Richard Nixon resigned in lieu of impeachment.

Obama's IRS has said they lost two entire years of e-mails, but only certain e-mails - the ones wanted by the Congressional Committee. Nope - no corruption there. Not even a smidgen.

I also heard today that a VA hospital in Fresno, California, blocked FOX News from airing on their internal television system shortly after they began reporting on the VA scandal. When confronted by a patient they said all news channels were blocked for moral purposes. But that patient said the only channel blocked at the time was FOX. Imagine that. 

Now let's go down the the Texas/Mexico border. The Department of Homeland Security is allowing thousands of children (and some mothers) to enter the country illegally. Rather than sending them back immediately, DHS is putting them on buses and transporting them to cities all over the country, with a promise from them that they will go to an immigration hearing on a certain date. They drop them off in these cities with nothing. Children. 

Rather than close the border and prevent them from entering, they just gather them up and put them on buses. Many of these are minor children. It seems to be the Obama administration is guilty of child abuse. Neglect at the very least.

There are also rumors that Obama is allowing the immigration crisis at the border so that Islamic terrorists can sneak into the country and set up an inside attack, thus allowing him to declare martial law and remain in power. As much as I'd like to decry this theory - what I've seen of Obama lately won't allow me to do that.

Yesterday I turned on the radio in the car and the Michael Medved show was on. I never really listen to Medved but something he said (not sure now what it was) caught my ear so I decided to listen for a minute. A man called in and actually said "Obama is not to blame for any of the scandals. In fact, Obama is the one who exposed the problems at the VA and the IRS and he's taking action to correct them. He immediately fired General Shinseki."

This is the problem we face here, folks. There are people out there who really believe as this guy does - that Obama is responsible for nothing and is fixing all the problems in the nation and the world. I can't help but wonder what that caller does when he's not high on Koolaide...?

And finally, just for fun, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that he will not attend another Washington Redskins game until they change the team's name. Now, I know Harry Reid is important in the Senate and probably in the state that keeps electing him, but after refusing to change the name because of public pressure, does Reid really believe Daniel Snyder will change the team's name just because he (Reid) will not come to the games? Really?

America is changing. And it's not changing for the better. We have a President who was taught from early childhood that America is an evil country who takes advantage of other countries for her own personal gain. He ignores the good things America has done because he wants to bring her down to the level he believes is appropriate. He never should have been President - based more on his ideologies than his inexperience. Of course - his inexperience is destroying Iraq right now.

We need a leader. Obama is not it.

Can I Affect An Effect?

My wife asked me this morning the difference between affect and effect. I must admit I have struggled with the difference between the two words myself. I know that the word affect is used to describe the lack of emotion or facial expression in a mental health type setting or situation. And I always believed that effect was what you used for everything else. Apparently I was wrong.

I looked up the difference between the two when Arden asked me about it. What I found gave me a greater understanding of the two words.... NOT.

From grammar.yourdictionary.com: The word "affect" means to produce a change in something. "Effect" is defined as a result of something or the ability to bring about a result.

Wait... huh? These are different? If you produce a change in something isn't that change the result? And if you do something that has a result, haven't you in actuality change it?

The website goes presents some examples of each word:

What effect did the loss have on the team?

The prescribed medication had an effect on the patient's symptoms.

In analyzing a situation, it is important to take the concepts of cause and effect into consideration.

Their examples for the word affect are as follows:

The young man with schizophrenia had a flat affect.

The woman took the news of her husband's sudden death with little affect.

How does the crime rate affect hiring levels by local police forces?

The weather conditions will affect the number of people who come to the county fair this year.

Got it now? Nah - me neither. Gotta love the English language.

"I Want The President To Help..."

Several weeks back, on one of his typical fund raising and public relations tours, President Obama made an appearance at a WalMart in Mountain View, California. I read an article several days later about a woman who wrote to Slate.com concerning her tough situation because the job she has at that WalMart doesn't pay enough. She wants the President to fix it. I'm not sure how he's supposed to do that - maybe by signing an Executive Order that commands corporations to raise their wages regardless of what it will do to their business. Here is the letter she wrote:

When I woke up to see the news I could hardly believe it: President Obama is planning a visit to the Mountain View Wal-Mart where I work.

But the excitement quickly passed when I found out the store would be shutting down hours in advance of his visit. I wouldn’t be able to tell the president what it’s like to work at Wal-Mart and what it’s like to struggle on low wages, without the hours I need. I am living at the center of the income inequality that he speaks about so often, and I wanted to talk to him about how to change this problem.

Things have always been tight. After four years working at Wal-Mart in Mountain View, I am bringing home about $400 every two weeks (I’d like to get more hours, but I’m lucky if I work 32 hours a week). That’s not enough to pay for bills, gas and food. All I can afford to eat for lunch is a cup of coffee and a bag of potato chips. I’ve always done everything possible to stretch paychecks and scrape by. Sometimes it means not getting enough to eat.

I wanted to tell the president I am scared. I am scared for my health. I am scared for the future for my grandkids. And I am scared and sad about the direction that companies like Wal-Mart are taking our country.

I want the president to help us and tell Wal-Mart to pay us enough to cover the bills and take care of our families. That doesn’t seem like too much to ask from such a profitable company, a company that sets the standard for jobs in this country. And I hope it’s not too much to ask from a president who believes that income inequality is the defining challenge of our time.

I feel badly for this woman. Not only does she not make enough money but she mistakenly believes the President is worried about "income inequality." President Obama doesn't care about her and how much she makes. If he had his way fewer people in this great nation would have wealth and more and more people would be in this woman's income bracket. That way the President could keep more people dependent on government, which is one of his ultimate goals.

Keeping people dependent on government means they will continue to vote for the government officials who will give them the most in free stuff. It is the goal of liberal progressives to make as many people dependent as possible. "Income redistribution", a phrase thrown around by liberal socialists, doesn't mean making everyone wealthy. It means taking money from the middle class and upper middle class so they move down to the level of those who are already dependent on the government.

Some people are hateful and envious of those who have more money than they. They believe it will be a good thing of those "wealthy" people have their money taken away. But what they don't really understand is that in a socialist government you are still going to have the very wealthy at the top. They will be the ones running things while the rest become simple peasants. So what, exactly, are you fixing? What you're trying to do is create more peasants.

Capitalism isn't perfect. It is mostly run by greed. But in a capitalistic society everyone has the opportunity to succeed with ambition, hard work and discipline. It's one of the things that has made this country great and made us a world leader. At least, until our current President decided we don't need to be a world leader anymore.