One Simple Reason The Baltimore Officers Should Be Exonerated....

If the six Baltimore police officers currently on paid suspension pending the outcome of the Freddie Gray investigation are betting men I would tell them to bet that they will be found innocent of wrongdoing and be reinstated. Why do I say this, you ask? It's easy. President Obama sent three White House representatives to Freddie Gray's funeral.

President Obama's record of picking the correct side in these widely publicized black/white cases is not great. In fact - so far he's batting 0 for 0.

It began just months after he took office with his ridiculous statement about the Professor Louis Gates case in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Of that case, before any real facts were known, President Obama said "I don't have all the facts but the Cambridge police acted stupidly."

Even though the charge of disorderly conduct was later dropped, the Cambridge Police and the arresting officer stood by their actions and President Obama held his infamous (and awkward) beer summit at which the arresting officer and Professor Gates sat down with Obama and Joe Biden on the White House lawn to patch things up. (If the President hadn't run his mouth it wouldn't have been necessary.)

Jump forward three years to the Trayvon Martin case. Before all of the facts were in President Obama once again weighed into a local case in another state about which he had no real information. 

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

The appearance remark might be true, although there is no way to tell. If he was thinking about his own kids and how he might feel if they died that's fine too. But if he was thinking that Trayvon Martin was just some innocent young kid who did nothing wrong he once again took the wrong side. The evidence didn't say so. George Zimmerman didn't say so. And ultimately the jury didn't say so. They found Zimmerman acted in self-defense after he was attacked by Trayvon Martin, whom witnesses say was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground.

Obama's obvious disappointment with the verdict came out in his remarks. He made it a race issue (even though George Zimmerman is Hispanic.) Although he said we must abide by the jury's decision he made it clear he disagreed with it. He charged Attorney General Eric Holder with finding anything they could use against George Zimmerman to obtain "justice" through other means. Holder failed - because there were none, even though Holder set up an AG snitch line for anyone who "might have any information on George Zimmerman they think could help."

Fast forward again to the Michael Brown shooting in August of last year. Without having the facts, President Obama sent a three-person White House delegation to the funeral of Brown who, as it turned out, was a petty criminal who attacked a police officer and tried to take his gun and was killed while mounting a second attack. This time Holder didn't wait to be asked but went to Ferguson, Missouri, himself with 40 FBI agents to dig up the dirt on Darren Wilson so he could be properly punished for his actions. Except, once again Holder failed and Obama chose the wrong side. The FBI report said that Officer Darren Wilson acted properly and in a justifiable manner when Michael Brown attacked him and was charging him a second time. As painful as that had to have been for Holder, it must have hurt the President to discover that once again he was on the wrong side of the issue.

President Obama encouraged the protesters, which in some ways, contributed to the violence. He didn't condemn the violence until he had no other choice.

Now back to recent events. On April 12th in Baltimore Freddie Gray ran from the police as they were walking toward him. With a long rap sheet it seems Freddie thought he might get into trouble. The police chased him, took him down and arrested him. They put him in the back of a police van for transport to the jail. During the trip officers (and one other man under arrest in the van) say that Gray was making a lot of noise and being belligerent during the trip. So much so that the transporting officers had to stop once to apply more restraints.

When they arrived at the jail Gray was found unconscious on the floor of the van and he was taken to the hospital, where he died a week later of a broken C-spine injury that the doctors described as his spine nearly being severed.

When New York City officers were found not to have used excessive force against Eric Garner, President Obama voiced his disappointment in the decision and encouraged, in his own way, people to continue protesting, even though the protesting often got out of hand.

There is much speculation as to what actually happened to Gray and an investigation has just been concluded today and forwarded to the prosecutor - 11 days later.

But President Obama sent a three-person White House delegation to the Gray's funeral. That should ease the minds of the officers involved. After all - unless President Obama finally breaks his losing streak, he chooses the wrong side every time. Given the odds, the police officers are probably innocent. 

Based on Obama's track record of being on the wrong side of these issues it appears likely that the officers will be cleared of wrongdoing. If I was a betting man I'd bet on the officers. After all - many people out there believe Obama is never wrong - even when he's wrong.

School To Mom: "We Are In Control Of What Your Child Eats"

Once again a school has decided they get to decide what a child eats rather than the parent. In this case it's just more overreach from a seemingly over zealous school administration.

Leeza Pearson, the mother of a four year old daughter in Colorado, was recently told by her daughter's school that if she didn't pack what the school wanted in her daughter's lunch they would not let her daughter eat it. They not only said it in words but in actions.

Last week Leeza was packing her daughter's lunch for school when she discovered she didn't have any fruit or vegetables to put in it as a healthy snack, as the school requests. Without much alternative at the time she stuck a small pack of Oreos in her daughter's lunch.

Pearson said she was shocked when her daughter came home later with the Oreos intact and a rather sternly worded note from school officials.

"Dear Parents, it is very important that all students have a nutritious lunch," the note read. "This is a public school setting and all children are required to have a fruit, a vegetable and a healthy snack from home, along with a milk. If they have potatoes, the child will also need bread to go along with it. Lunchables, chips, fruit snacks, and peanut butter are not considered to be a healthy snack. This is a very important part of our program and we need everyone's participation."

Pearson was more than surprised at the response from the school.

"I think it is definitely over the top, especially because they told her she can't eat what is in her lunch," Pearson said in an interview with ABC News. "They should have at least allowed to eat her food and contacted me to explain the policy and tell me not to pack them again."

The school, the Children's Academy in Aurora, declined to comment when contacted by news agencies. A spokesperson for the Aurora Public Schools system which provides funding for some students to attend the private pre-school, said that sending a note home with the child is not standard practice.

"From our end we want to inform parents but never want it to be anything punitive," said spokeswoman Patty Moon. She said the school was simply trying to promote healthy eating.

Pearson says that's a bit inconsistent since before this year's Easter holiday the kids were asked to bring Easter candy to share with the class and her daughter is often given jelly beans as a snack during aftercare.

"They say I can't decide what to feed her but then they sometimes feed her junk food. Why am I being punished for Oreos when at other times I am asked to bring candy?" Pearson wondered aloud.

Patty Moon said that Pearson's daughter was offered an alternative snack. But Pearson and her daughter say that is not true and that the child came home hungry, cookies and all.

"She is not overweight by any means and I usually try to feed her healthy," Pearson said. She had also included a sandwich and some string cheese in the lunch. "It’s not like I was offering cookies to the entire class and it's not like that was the only thing in her lunch."

A school making suggestions is one thing. Preventing a child from eating something given to her by her mother is something that would have me headed to the school. And they wouldn't have liked what I had to tell them.

Apparently Thug IS The New N-word....

Many in the black community in the United States have decided that the word "thug," which by Merriam-Webster definition means 'a violent criminal' or 'a brutal ruffian,' is now interchangeable with the N-word.

According to the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com), Tupac Shakur redefined "thug" to mean "someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life."

I'm not sure when or by what authority Tupac made this change but the word obviously means something different to the black community than it does to the white community.

In my 22 years working in federal prisons the word "thug" was used often by staff when referring to inmates of any race or skin color. The word "convict" was also used. After all, that's what they were -- criminals, convicts... thugs.

On Sunday, the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, when speaking of the people who were vandalizing, looting and setting fires in her city during the ongoing protests, said “Too many people have spent generations building up this city for it to be destroyed by thugs who, in a very senseless way, are trying to tear down what so many have fought for.”

Baltimore City Council President Jack Young on Sunday also referred to those people who were destroying property as criminals and thugs.

Even President Obama echoed the mayor's sentiment yesterday saying, among other things, “My understanding is you’ve got some of the same organizers now going back into these communities to try to clean up in the aftermath of a handful of protesters — a handful of criminals and thugs who tore up the place​.”

But now at least two of those people are apologizing for using the "T-word," as it's now being called. Yesterday, Mayor Rawlings-Blake said in a press conference: “I wanted to say something that was on my heart … We don’t have thugs in Baltimore. Sometimes my little anger interpreter gets the best of me,” she said, indicating her brain. “We have a lot of kids that are acting out, a lot of people in our community that are acting out.”

In addition, Jack Young, standing between two confirmed gang members (who seem to have become heroes to the city administration during this incident) made the following statement to the media:

"I made a comment out of frustration and anger when I called our children ‘thugs.’ They’re not thugs. They’re just misdirected. We need to direct them on a different path by creating opportunities for them.”

Apparently complaints about the T-word made the mayor and councilman change their stories. And they are both black. 

Changing her story is nothing new for the mayor. On Sunday she said the police were to give space to those who wanted to destroy things. After it happened she denied saying it - despite the video evidence.

Another Baltimore City Councilman, Carl Stokes, was one of those denouncing the use of the T-word. On CNN last night Stokes equated it with the N-word, despite the actions of the protesters.

"Of course it's not the right word to call our children thugs," Stokes said. "These are children who have been set aside, marginalized who have not been engaged by us."

The CNN reporter interrupted: "But how does that justify what they did? That's a sense of right and wrong. They know it's wrong to steal and burn down a CVS and an old person's home. I mean, come on."

"Come on? Calling them thugs?" Stokes asked. "Just call them n-----," he said. "Just call them n-----. No, we don't have to call them by names such as that. We don't have to do that."

Stokes then challenged the reporter.

"You wouldn't call your child a thug if they should do something that would not be what you would want them to do," Stokes said.

But the reporter shot back: "I would hope I would call my son a thug if he ever did such a thing."

President Obama has not apologized for using the T-word as of yet. It will be interesting to see if he does and to see if he is also criticized for using it.

I can't help but wonder if black people call each other the T-word on the street but the word is off limits for whites to use - just like the N-word. That seems to be the direction we're heading. Of course, with all the other "code words" that supposedly refer to black people (inner city, states' rights, cut taxes, law and order, welfare, food stamps) it certainly won't be the last. In this day and age of political correctness at any and all costs, it won't surprise me if the word "black" becomes the next word whites cannot say because, well.... it means "black."

The Mob Mentality With Poor Public Leadership - A Dangerous Combination

We saw it in Ferguson last year. We saw it in Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, Chicago. We're seeing it again in Baltimore right now. The mob mentality has taken over in some of our cities and a complete lack of effective leadership is only making things worse.

Fueled by rage from police incidents that involve black suspects being killed, the mobs seek justice through destruction and anarchy. But what gets them to that point? Some say it's frustration because of black oppression for hundreds of years. Some say it's their socioeconomic situation. Some even say there is a war on young black men by the white community - or at least by white cops.

Is it one of those things? Is it all of those things combined? Or is it something else?

I won't pretend to know what life is like in the inner city for young black Americans. I've driven through some of the poor, inner city communities in Chicago, Miami, East Saint Louis, and even Washington, DC. Life has to be difficult for those people. Yet some make it out successfully and move on to productive lives.

But what is it that causes the mob mentality - the need to destroy your own neighborhood in anger? These days, besides their frustration with their socioeconomic situation, we have the media that sensationalizes everything for rating purposes and says whatever they need to say, true or not, to make things worse than they already are. That was evident in the Trayvon Martin case when MSNBC edited audio 911 recordings to make it sound as if George Zimmerman was profiling Martin. When the unedited recording was made public MSNBC said that they had simply "made an error" when editing the recording. As if the recording needed to be edited...

The media played a big part in the rioting and destruction in Ferguson, Missouri, as well. They reported Michael Brown as being a "gentle giant," ignoring for a long time the strong armed robbery at the convenience store and his criminal record. They put Dorian Johnson's face (Brown's friend and accomplice) on national TV as he lied about what happened - without vetting his story. Johnson's story started the whole "Hands Up - Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be completely false. The medial also told the American public where Officer Wilson lived even as death threats were being made against him - which was irresponsible at best and downright unethical at worst.

The other problem we seem to have is a lack of effective political leadership. And it begins with the President of the United States. President Obama has inserted himself into nearly every well known case that involved a black man and police. Beginning with the Professor Henry Louis Gates case, of which the President said "I don't have all the facts but the police acted stupidly," - President Obama has made the police out to be inept, incompetent racists at every opportunity - even when there was no evidence of that.

"If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," the President said in the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida just a couple of years later. Zimmerman went on to be acquitted of his charges because the jury believed that while he was stupid to get out of his vehicle and follow Martin through the neighborhood, Martin attacking Zimmerman was what ultimately led to Martin's death.

Fast forward to the Michael Brown case. As angry protesters took to the streets and began destroying parts of Ferguson, Missouri, fueled by the main stream media's false reporting, President Obama weighed in again with questionable information.

“I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding,” Obama said in a statement.

Obama either didn't know or didn't care that Michael Brown was a juvenile delinquent who was killed because he physically assaulted Officer Wilson with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Obama sent three White House representatives to Brown's funeral - only to later have the official Justice Department report say that Wilson acted lawfully and in self defense when he shot Brown.

The Mayor of Ferguson did his best to help the situation. But the Governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon (D), blew it completely. Just days after the shooting, before the investigation was even half completed, Nixon called for the indictment of Officer Darren Wilson on murder charges. Such idiocy only serves to fan the flames in a community where black hoodlums are already destroying and looting businesses. The governor pronounced Wilson guilty before the investigation was complete. he could have echoed President Obama.... "I don't have all the information but Officer Wilson murdered Michael Brown." Except that wasn't the case.

Then Attorney General Eric Holder didn't help matters in the Martin case or the Brown case. He automatically assumed that both Zimmerman and Wilson were guilty of racism and civil rights violations and dispatched FBI investigators (as many as 40 in Ferguson) to find the proof. He personally traveled to Ferguson to assure the community that he would get Wilson. Except that didn't happen because Wilson committed no crime.

Holder has a history of empowering black radicals dating back to the New Black Panther Party intimidating voters in the 2008 Presidential election. His failure to prosecute them told the rest of the black activists that he was on their side. His actions and words embolden those who wish to create havoc in the streets.

When Eric Garner died in New York following an altercation with police in which he resisted arrest and was taken to the ground by force, the President said “My tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation,” which was as ludicrous as his statement about the Professor Gates case. His tradition is to always weigh in on cases that have to do with black suspects.

In that case, leadership failed completely. The President weighed in, Eric Holder took up another federal investigation, and the Mayor of New York, Bill "I'm An Idiot" De Blasio, wrote his entire police force off as being inherently racist. His criticism of his own force earned him the honor of having his entire department turn their backs to him in public. I doubt they have yet forgiven him for his insult.

Now let's jump ahead to Baltimore. Following the death of Freddie Gray, a black man who was arrested by Baltimore police and who died of a broken spine while in police custody, protests turned into riots and destruction and oddly enough, they were authorized by the Baltimore mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

In a televised statement the mayor said "I’ve made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate, and that’s what you saw."

She gave them space to destroy if they wished to destroy? What kind of capable, competent mayor does that? The results of her bad judgement are obvious. Not only are businesses and police being attacked but recently the violent protesters (some mere children) have begun hurling bricks, rocks, bottles and cinder blocks at ambulances and firetrucks as they are responding to emergencies. Up to 15 police officers have been injured and one is reported to be unresponsive. Are you happy with that, Madam Mayor?

And let us not forget the guys who were cutting holes in fire department hoses while they were attempting to extinguish fires in businesses...

Of course, following the destruction and the injuries the mayor backtracked her statement saying she did not intend to condone the destruction that took place and may have enabled it "inadvertently." I think she knew exactly what she was saying. She also called those who are destroying things "thugs." I wonder if anyone is going to call her a racist for that?

Yesterday the mayor announced that a curfew would go into effect - today. She gave the thugs another night to riot and destroy. Poor leadership at its best.

Some liberal media outlets, such as "fusion.net," somehow see this as a good thing.

"But overall, most of the damage was cosmetic, and it might not cost the city or property owners a fortune to fix" wrote one of their reporters. "Either that, or it might have been worth the calculation from city officials to sacrifice a little public property for the sake of allowing protesters to vent their anger, hopefully quelling unrest in the long run."

So according to them, looting businesses, setting them on fire, destroying vehicles that are owned and financed by the taxpayers, and attacking EMS personnel and vehicles on their way to save a life or two is healthy and positive? In what kind of world do they live?

The mob mentality feeds on destruction of whatever happens to be there - even their own neighborhoods and businesses. In Ferguson, after they burned down several businesses and forced others to close, the same mob demanded that the government and/or corporations rebuild those businesses or else. Or else what? They'll burn them down again? Perhaps they'll burn down more businesses to force the government and corporations to rebuild the first ones?

The mob mentality can be seen at work in many situations. As was pointed out by a friend of mine this morning - the mob mentality often takes over following sports events. And it doesn't seem to matter whether or not which team won or lost. Fans of the losing team riot. Fans of the winning team riot. Because they're idiots. I was in Denver in 1999 when Denver won the Superbowl. Their fans took to the streets, breaking windows, setting fires and looting stores. The mob mentality has no common sense whatsoever. It becomes about mass destruction - basically for no reason at all.

President Obama has spoken personally with Mayor Rawlings-Blake. I can't help but wonder how she rated this call. He didn't call the mayor of Ferguson at all during the protests and riots there. I will leave it up to the reader to decide on that one.

But have no fear. I just read that Mayor Rawlings-Blake has requested the presence of Reverend Al Sharpton, President Obama's personal adviser on race relations, to help ease the violence and tension and that Sharpton is on his way there now. Yeah.... that's a great idea - because bringing in a race baiting activist who makes his living stirring up racial tension and conflict always works...

"Live And Let Live" No Longer Applies

This is a rather sensitive topic that draws all kinds of opinions. The opinions in this post are mine and mine alone. I will not address the issue of same-sex marriage but the issue of those who object to it on religious grounds and the fact that those people, who until now have been protected by the First Amendment, are seeing their rights stripped away by the very people who demand tolerance of different beliefs.

An administrative law judge in Oregon, working for the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, has ruled that an Oregon bakery that refused to participate in a same sex wedding by baking their wedding cake, because their evangelical Christian beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman, must pay the "victims" $135,000 for pain and suffering.

The bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, has already closed because of the cost of defending their stance on same sex marriage and because other businesses sympathetic to the couple have severed ties with them. Now they are going to be forced to pay $135,000 to the couple, who claim they suffered at least 88 different physical ailments because the bakery refused to make them a cake for their wedding.

That list included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry," and 72 other physical ailments.

Really? Because one bakery refused to bake you a cake for a same sex wedding that wasn't even legal in the state at the time? Please.

I can't help but wonder how this couple will survive everyday life in the real world if they get that ill from simply being told "No, I won't participate in your wedding." If they are that fragile how will they ever deal with a real problem?

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

But in 2015 America, the First Amendment no longer applies to everyone. It is being modified by liberal judges to say that only some people have the right to freedom of speech and no one has the legal right to oppose same sex marriages based on their religious beliefs. You have the right to your religious beliefs as long as they include your acceptance and possible participation in same sex marriages. And we'll force your silence if you believe otherwise.

Liberals feel the same way about conservatives in general. The liberal motto has become "You are entitled to your beliefs as long as they don't disagree with mine." They scream for tolerance but their tolerance consists only of people tolerating them, not the other way around. This case proves it. Christians are being forced to forego their Biblical beliefs to pacify a minority group. Think it would happen if a Muslim baker refused to make a cake for a Jewish couple? Not on your life.

Is it any wonder that some governors are seeing a need to defend religious liberties in their states? Objecting to being a participant in a same-sex wedding is not discrimination. It is (or should be) freedom of choice - even for business owners. After all, in the Burwell vs Hobby Lobby, Inc., case the judge ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, saying that because of their deeply held religious beliefs they would not have to pay for a certain type of birth control because of those beliefs. It should be the same with a same sex-wedding. Christians who believe same-sex marriage is wrong should not have to participate in it - either voluntarily or by coercion.

Refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discrimination against against homosexuals. In the case of every business that has been on the news lately, gay people were not refused service in the stores. If a ha person wanted a birthday cake he/she got it. If a gay person wanted photographs taken of their child's graduation or their grandmother's funeral or whatever, he/she got them. The only time they have been refused service was their request to participate (by baking a special cake or taking photographs) in their same-sex wedding.

It's not about discrimination - it's about participation in an activity that one objects to based on Biblical beliefs. And now it has become about being forced by the government to participate.

When Sweet Cakes by Melissa was handed the decision supporters of their actions immediately opened a GoFundMe account - a web page that allows the public to donate funds to support people who need it. But after complaints from gay-rights advocates, GoFundMe closed the account saying the account violated their policies in defense “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”

From the Washington Times:

“The campaign entitled ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa‘ involves formal charges. As such, our team has determined that it was in violation of GoFundMe’s Terms & Conditions.”

“The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal,” said GoFundMe.


Except the bakery's actions were not heinous crimes. They weren't violent, hateful or sexual. They were simply disagreement based on personal beliefs.

The couple says they suffered physical and emotional damages because the Kleins refused to make them a cake. They are married today and their lives haven't really changed much - except that it seems they're about to come into some cash.

The Kleins, who have five children and who no longer have their business as a source of income, must feed their children and pay their bills anyway. And now they may have to come up with $135,000 to pay to the couple. So who is really suffering here?

The administrative judge handed down his 110 page written decision and gave the Kleins 10 days to file an appeal. Their lawyers say that may not be enough time to properly review the decision and file appropriately. The Kleins are learning what liberal "tolerance" is first hand.

In my humble, uneducated opinion, these cases should be the same as the Hobby Lobby case. Businesses should not be forced to participate in a ceremony they find objectionable due to their closely held religious beliefs. The couples are not being denied the right to get married. They're not being denied general services from the businesses because of their lifestyles. They're being refused their request for participation in their wedding ceremony based on what at one time was the guaranteed freedom to practice one's religion unhindered by the government.

It seems that particular First Amendment right is no longer valid. One protected class is having their rights stripped away because of another protected class. I would venture a guess that if Sweet Cakes by Melissa had as much money as Hobby Lobby their case may have resulted in a different verdict. But instead, Sweet Cakes and others are now out of business due to the loving "tolerance" of a few same-sex couples.

All I can say is...  forced tolerance and the destruction of families to make a point does not sway people's opinions in a positive way.

Great Information On The Future Of Islamic Terrorists vs Political Correctness

I read this in an e-mail a little while ago. It's reportedly by a retired attorney to his sons, telling them about what is going on in the world. I have no idea whether or not the letter is genuine. But the information contained within it is spot on.

It gives one something to think about when considering radical Islam.

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:


When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
*The "field" in Pennsylvania 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: During the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

1. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

2. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

3. What is the Muslim population of the World?

Twenty-five percent.

4. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt the predominantly Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was a Catholic), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (and 7,000 Polish priests).

Thus, almost the same numbers of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities.

Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.

It’s the same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French, or anyone else.

The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels."

I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal.

There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions: We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam.
This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase.

Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.
The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them.

They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim Terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than Churches.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it.
After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims?
If we can't stop the Muslim /Terrorists, how could anyone else?

The Radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning.
And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple.

We can lose the war by "imploding."

That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.
If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selected Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refused to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?

This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WW II, and immediately restored them after the victory .... and, in fact, added many more since that time.


Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war.

None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.

Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening.
It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.

We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type of prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason.

They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. 

And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like "Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned" -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim / Terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.

We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allows freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire.
IF, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less, they will continue to increase the Muslim population of France. They will also continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.

Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, being politically correct, piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other; over who of them will be the few that will be controlling the masses.

What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the non-existent "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it!

As President - Hillary Wants To "Topple The 1%"

Here we go again. Hillary Clinton wants to pretend she is just one of the common folks, appalled by those wealthy one-percenters who have all the money while she and the other commoners barely get by.

"By toppling the rich, I'm gonna go get their money," Mrs. Clinton said a few days ago. "I'm gonna take it away from them. My first target's gonna be the Koch brothers. I'm gonna take everything they've got!"

First of all - what kind of a Presidential candidate threatens American citizens? Granted the Koch brothers are extremely wealthy and conservative (the real problem) but for a Presidential candidate to target American citizens, regardless of their status or political leanings, is pathetic. But Hillary's supporters will devour her statements and cheer her on.

Secondly, and more important, Hillary likes people to believe that she is not one of those "evil one-percenters." Her followers seem to be blind to her wealth. But not only is she one of the one-percenters, she and Bill are right up there at the top of the list. Sure, she doesn't have the money that the Koch brothers have. Nor does she rank up there with Bill Gates. But according to a new book by Peter Schweizer, "Clinton Cash," she and Bill had a combined income last year of up to $300 million. 

Some of the "evil one-percenters" Hillary wants to go after are corporate CEOs. You know - the guys at the top of the companies that actually offer you a service or a product, unlike Hillary or Bill, who now only offer speeches. (Wait - to be fair, Hillary did offer a book. But so far it has been a complete flop!)

By the way - have you ever noticed that for all the complaining liberals do about wealthy CEOs you never hear them vilify Bill Gates or Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, Inc. We already know Gates is a billionaire and Tim Cook's valued salary, bonuses and stock awards is estimated to be right around $681 million currently. It is expected to increase. So why don't the liberals complain about them? The answer is simple. They're fellow liberals.

Let's look at a few of the highest paid CEOs in the country today. According to Forbes Magazine, John Hammergren of McKesson Medical Equipment and Pharmaceuticals was the highest paid CEO at $131.3 million. He is followed by Ralph Lauren, who pulls in just over half that at $66.7 million. In third place is Michael Fascitelli of Vornado Realty, who receives $64.4 million in compensation. And fourth is Richard Kinder of Kinder Morgan (energy infrastructure), at $60.9 million.

Back to Hillary and Bill. If the statements about their income last year are true they earned more than double what the highest paid corporate CEO in America made last year. If you split it down the middle they each made $150 million. (Most articles I've read say Bill made more than Hillary so it wouldn't be a 50/50 split. But the point is the same.)

Hillary says she wants to topple the 1% while she pretends she's not one of the leaders of the pack. Is she going to begin with her own family? I have a guess on that.

The most disheartening thing about Hillary is not her wealth. It's the fact that there are so many people in this county who completely ignore her actions and still support her and trust her to be President of the United States! It's beyond my comprehension how anyone can have any trust in the woman. 

This country does not need Hillary Clinton in politics any longer. She has not only outlived her usefulness (and that's giving her credit for having any), but her actions as Secretary of State - personal e-mail server, destruction of potentially damaging e-mails, the Benghazi cover-up, and shady donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign nations - should prevent her from ever holding public office again. 

Sadly, even given Hillary's questionable history - those who love her will only echo her own question when asked about it. "What difference, at this point, does it make?!"

Does Political Persuasion Automatically Cloud The Truth?

I was in the car with the radio on a little while ago and heard conservative talk show host Mark Davis (660AM, WBAP, Dallas/Fort Worth) ask a question that I found interesting. The question was something like "If a person writes a book (or an article for the purposes of this post) that is critical of another person, such as the new book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, is the information in the book automatically untrue because the author is of the opposite political persuasion?

Let's break it down to generalities.

If a conservative writes a book or an article that is critical of a liberal, particularly a liberal political candidate, is the information in said book or article automatically untrue because the author is a conservative?

In like manner - if a liberal writes a book or an article that is critical of a conservative is the information in said book or article automatically untrue because the author is a liberal?

The conservative in me says "Liberals are incapable of telling the truth so the answer to the second question is a resounding "YES!" But logic and common sense tells me that thought would be wrong. I have liberal friends whom, although I disagree with their political views, are honest and trustworthy when it comes to personal integrity. And spare me the "Liberals have no integrity" speech because it's simply untrue. Integrity is defined by one's words and actions, not their political beliefs.

For those on the political right who believe all liberals are the same and none of them have any integrity I would remind you that some people judge all Christians by the ones who get the most attention, such as the Westboro Baptist Church and Al Sharpton. Both profess to be Christians and doing God's work but if you are a Christian would you want to be judged by their actions? I wouldn't think so.

The New York Times, hardly a conservative media outlet, seems to be putting a bit of stock in what Schweizer has said about the Clintons. They have published at least two articles about the book and have yet to denounce it as being untrue simply because Schweizer is a conservative. And interestingly, Schweizer is working on a new book now about the finances of Jeb Bush, a prominent Presidential candidate on the Republican side. That's hardly the work of a conservative subversive - unless you agree with me that Bush is far from a conservative. In that case perhaps it is subversive.

Anyway - back to the original question. Does political affiliation automatically mean something isn't true if its written by the other side? I think there are many who would say yes without investigating the information and its source(s). And that's part of the problem with America today. Too many people read a headline and see who wrote the article and decide it's untrue based simply on the author or publisher.

I will admit to being skeptical of an article if it's written by a liberal or published by a liberal site. But hey - the New York Times is getting my attention because they're posting information uncovered by a conservative without automatically denouncing it. And I give them credit for that.

What are your thoughts? Do you investigate something yourself before passing judgement on it or dismiss it as false based on who wrote it. And if your answer is the latter - is it OK for the other side to do the same?

Gang Member Who Faced Deportation Arrested For Triple Murder

Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez was arrested for possession of marijuana in North Carolina in 2012. He was in the country illegally. In January of 2013, Rangel-Hernandez requested deferred action pursuant to President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. 

Without a proper background check being performed (or perhaps without his background check being properly reviewed) prior to his request being approved, it was overlooked that he was a gang member and did not qualify for the DACA program. He was released as a legal resident under Obama's program.

Today Rangel-Hernandez sits in a North Carolina jail charged with the murders of three Americans.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), sent a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Leon Rodriguez in an effort to learn how such a mistake could have happened that resulted in the deaths of three American citizens. Basically, Rodriguez said "We didn't follow our own procedures."

“Based on standard procedures and protocols in place at the time, the DACA request and related employment authorization should not have been approved,” Rodriguez wrote in response to Grassley's letter. "Given the fact that the individual was identified as a known gang member, his request should have been denied by the adjudicator. If an adjudicator found a reason to accept a known gang member into the program, that request would have to be elevated to higher level officials at USCIS."

No kidding.

Senator Grassley wasn't pleased.

“It’s no secret that USCIS staff is under intense pressure to approve every DACA application that comes across their desk, and based on this information, it’s clear that adequate protocols are not in place to protect public safety,” he said. “The fact is that this tragedy could have been avoided if the agency had a zero tolerance policy with regard to criminal aliens and gang members.”

“The USCIS needs to immediately start performing detailed criminal background checks to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future,” added Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

Director Rodriguez assured the Senators that steps would be taken to prevent a similar incident in the future. 

“Officers received DACA refresher training regarding disqualifying public safety and criminality concerns, including but not limited to gang membership, significant misdemeanors, and three or more misdemeanor criminal offenses,” he wrote.

Grassley also sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking how a gang member's affiliation could be overlooked and how a known criminal could have been approved for DACA. Their answer was "USCIS doesn't track that information and each file would have to be manually screened. We are working to correct that."

I'm sure that makes the families of the victims feel much better...

Obama Making War With His New BFF?

For the last couple of months the Obama administration, with Secretary of State John Kerry spearheading, has been trying anything and everything to get Iran to sign an agreement that allegedly would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon - at least for a while. They've done pretty much everything they can do, including giving Iran everything they wanted and getting nothing in return. They were about to conclude this non-written agreement before Iran said "By the way - eve if we do agree to anything we won't be sticking to it anyway."

Everyone in the world - well, except for President Obama and John Kerry, perhaps - knew this was going to happen. We all knew Iran would never maintain an agreement like that. Way back when Iran began developing uranium for "nuclear power plants" most Americans knew that it was a bad idea. Allowing a nation whose leaders are fanatical Muslim extremists and who have been threatening our strongest ally in the region, Israel, for years, to develop nuclear anything is ridiculous. But President Obama said Iran has the right to have nuclear power plants if that's what it wants. He didn't believe (or ignored) the possibility that Iran would have hidden sinister motives. He wanted to make friends with them after all these years of hostility. So that's what he set out to do.

Obama's new best friend forever has taken the lead in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Since President Obama wouldn't do it, Iran has seized the opportunity to expand its empire and take control of the region. And our President is ignoring the years-long disagreement we have with them, removing sanctions that have kept them pretty well in their place all these years, and helping them not only develop a bomb but giving air support to their campaign in Iraq.

But now there is a new twist. In recent weeks Shiite rebels have been overtaking the government of Yemen. You remember Yemen - that small country that President Obama touted as his "counter terrorism success story" just weeks ago. Their President has abdicated and gone into hiding and the Shia rebels have seized control of Amran. The twist is that the Shia rebels taking over Yemen are, in fact, backed and funded by none other than Obama's new BFF, Iran.

To further complicate matters, our other ally, Saudi Arabia, has formed a coalition to defend Yemen against the rebels. The United states is backing the Saudis with intelligence gathering and logistics.

President Obama has now ordered the  aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Normandy, a guided-missile cruiser, to the Gulf of Aden. They insist that these ships, which join seven other U.S. Navy ships in the region, are not going there to stop Iranian vessels from delivering arms to the rebels in Yemen. The Saudi coalition already has a blockade in place in the waters offshore. But what if it becomes necessary? Will we allow Iranian shipments of arms to get through just because Obama is trying to maintain his new friendship? If that's the case - what's the point of sending the ships in the first place?

"In recent days, the U.S. Navy has increased its presence in this area as a result of the current instability in Yemen," said a Navy statement on Monday.

"The purpose of these operations is to ensure the vital shipping lanes in the region remain open and safe. The United States remains committed to its regional partners and to maintaining security in the maritime environment," it said.

The purpose is to ensure that vital shipping lanes remain open. What exactly does that mean? Is the US there to oppose Iran or to oppose the Saudi blockade if necessary?

According to The Hill.com "The U.S. has also pledged to help the coalition ensure that a United Nations Security Council arms embargo enacted last week against the Houthi leadership is enforced."

So in Iraq and Syria Obama is fighting with Iran and off the coast of Yemen Obama will be fighting against Iran? How incompetent is our Commander in Chief, anyway?

Obama Wants Michelle To Get Paid

Several times during his Presidency, and as recently as last week, President Obama has stated his belief that First Lady Michelle Obama should receive a fat paycheck for being First Lady. I'm not sure what she does to earn said paycheck except, like many government agencies, she spends a lot of taxpayer dollars. And like those government agencies, many of the taxpayer dollars she spends are basically wasted - on luxurious vacations and travel. She's been known to take a separate Air Force flight from her husband even when they were going to the same place on the same day.

Mrs. Obama enjoys a life of luxury every day. She lives in a mansion paid for with taxpayer dollars. She has a chef, personal assistants, housekeepers, people to do her laundry, wait staff, etc., and pays nothing for it. Pretty much anything she wants she gets as far as creature comforts and the bill is given to the American people. And the President wants her to be paid for that?

Michelle Obama was not elected to the position of First Lady. Good or bad, the title comes from being married to the President of the United States. I'm not even sure where the title came from except that some people believe it was first used by Zachary Taylor in his eulogy for Dolley Madison. Mostly it is a way to distinguish the wife of the President of the United States from other women.

President Obama uses his desire for Michelle to get paid in conjunction with his complaints about pay disparities between men and women and the fact that Republicans (his words) are responsible for it. He fails to mention that in his own White House administration there is a 13% difference between the average pay for male staffers and female staffers. That difference has been there since Obama took office in 2009. So while he talks big about pay disparities and blames Republicans, he's done nothing about it for those over whom he has control.

To be fair, one reason there is a pay disparity in the White House is because more men hold senior positions than do women. But isn't that sexist? Should the President promote more women who work for him? He would be demanding it of a Republican administration, you can bet.

In other news, in Obama's "counter terrorism success story," Yemen, Saudi led coalition forces are bombing the capital city to destroy weapons caches held by Iranian-backed Shiite rebels. Obama's new BFF, Iran, is complaining that the Saudis are "not abiding by their international obligations and respecting diplomatic missions."

So the Iranians are helping to overthrow the Yemeni government and threatening to destroy not only Israel but the United States and it's the Saudis who are not abiding by international obligations? And since Obama refuses to address the threats to Israel and America during his nuclear negotiations with his new friend - it seems he's not living up to international obligations either. It seems in the case of Iran and Obama that it's the fanatical leading the blind.

But Yemen is a success story. Josh Earnest said so just two weeks ago. And pulling all of our troops out of Iraq was a successful end to the mission also. We shouldn't allow ISIS to detract from the success of that mission. That's what the left keeps saying.

If that's success I can't help but wonder what failure looks like.

For The Second Time In My Life I'm Ashamed Of My Government

I served eight years in the United States Air Force, from 1977 to 1985. From there I went on to a 22 year career with the federal government, in the Bureau of Prisons. For 30 years I worked for the President of the United States and his cabinet members - the Secretary of Defense or the Attorney General. Only once during that career was I ashamed of the government for which I worked. And that was during the Carter administration.

Jimmy Carter was no leader. He may have been a decent governor - I don't remember because I was 19 years old and didn't much care about politics. And I didn't live in Georgia. He must have done something right because he ended up as President of the United States.

But as President he was mostly a failure. He negotiated an arms treaty with the Soviet Union which the Soviet Union had no intentions of honoring. He failed miserably when the American embassy in Iran was taken by terrorists and the Americans there were held hostage for over a year (444 days.) He cut funding to and reduced the size of our military, as Democrats seem to enjoy doing. Unemployment and inflation both rose during his administration.

The worst thing by far was Carter's handling, or non-handling, of the Iranian hostage crisis. He had no idea what to do. When negotiations failed the military attempted a rescue, which also failed and resulted in the deaths of 8 service members. (In all fairness, the failed rescue attempt wasn't the fault of President Carter but the entire hostage crisis was handled badly and Carter didn't have the backbone to take decisive action. The hostages were freed the moment Ronald Reagan finished his oath of office in 1981. Some say they were released because of ongoing negotiations. Most believe it was because Iran knew that Ronald Reagan would not sit back and allow them to be kept in captivity.)

The only reason I wasn't ashamed of the government for which I worked a second time is because I retired in 2007. If I had worked for President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder I would have retired. That's how bad things have gotten, in my opinion.

President Obama is not a leader. Despite the credit he takes for certain military actions, such as the Navy SEALs bagging Bin Laden, his military successes are negligible. He has gutted our military. He pulled all of our troops out of Iraq and it is being taken over by ISIS. His less than aggressive air campaign isn't much of a deterrent to them. Russian President Vladimir Putin is flying military missions near our coast and has threatened nuclear war if Obama one day lives up to the treaty we have with Ukraine. (So far Obama has ignored our agreement to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression.)

Obama talks about how great the economy is doing even as 47% of Americans are now on government assistance and the number of people who are actually still in the work force is the lowest it has been in over 35 years. He brags about the deficit being lower but ignores the fact that he has nearly doubled the national debt.

I won't even get into all of the various scandals and lies except to mention that according to President Obama, Benghazi was caused by a video and if you like your doctor and your insurance plan you can keep them. Enough said.

President Obama seems intent on befriending our enemies, such as Cuba and Iran, and alienating our friends and allies, such as Israel and Great Britain. (Sure, the leaders of Israel and Great Britain say assuringly that the relationships between our nations is as strong as ever but the tension between them [Obama and Netanyahu for instance] is visible when they are together.)

Obama's election was historical. He was the first-ever African American President. It was a milestone for the United States and her people. But on day #2 of his Presidency that milestone was left behind and his legacy began. Contrary to popular liberal opinion, his skin color doesn't matter. Being black doesn't make him a bad President. But it certainly doesn't make him a good one. His words and actions will determine his legacy. And so far it's not looking good.

I am ashamed of many of President Obama's actions within the world. He vowed to "fundamentally change America" and he is working hard to fulfill that vow. From his worldwide apology tour, to government run health care, to reducing America's standing in the world, to his apparent hatred of Israel and her Prime Minister, Obama just doesn't live up to the standards set by past Presidents. Even Jimmy Carter was better than Obama. It has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with integrity and honor. And it seems Mr. Obama possesses neither of those characteristics.

Black Man Beaten By Black Mob - Media And Sharpton Silent

Memphis, Tennessee - home of Elvis, blues, Mud Island on the Mississippi River, Saint Jude's Children's Hospital, and great dry-rub barbecue - something I personally have adopted in my own kitchen. It's a great place to visit and see the sights.

But just days ago Memphis took an ugly turn for one of its residents. Orrden Williams, a black man who had stopped at a BP gas station to use the ATM, was getting ready to return to his car when he encountered Mary Fuller, an elderly white woman who was expressing fear of returning to her car because of a large group of black high school students who were in the parking lot, "flashing gang signs and raising a ruckus."

Fuller, clearly afraid for her safety, said to Williams "I don’t know if I ought to walk out of here or not, because they’re still fighting."

"It's not a problem. I'll take care of this," Williams responded. He put his arm around Ms. Fuller and escorted her to her vehicle. Video from the station's security camera shows Williams and Fuller as they come out of the station and go to her car. Williams mistakenly says something to the boys about settling down. I think that was his mistake.

Just as Fuller gets safely in her car and closes the door, the video shows a black teenager walk up behind Williams and sucker punch him in the back of the head. Williams turned to defend himself saying "Is that all you've got?" when he was surrounded, chased and beaten by a mob of black students.

The cameras show Williams attempting to flee as he is being pummeled. He eventually made it to his mini-van where his fiance' was waiting with their two children, a toddler and a four month old baby. Williams said at one point the attackers very nearly hit his toddler son.

He got into the van and secured the doors. That's when the mob began to attack and damage his vehicle.

Ms. Fuller watched the melee from the safety of her car. “They don’t care about human beings,” she said. “If I hadn’t been in the car, they’d have soon got me.”

“This was a terrorist act,” said Williams. “This is a civilized society. We have no place for this.”

The Memphis Police Department has increased its presence at the gas station, which is adjacent to the Northwest Prep Academy - which is described as a reform school for troubled youth. The gas station is where the kids hang out while waiting for the bus. Station employees say fights and threats occur daily. Police have been called to the station 43 times in the last year

So where are civic leaders demanding this violence cease? Where is the main stream media decrying this violence? Oh wait...  it's black on black violence. There's no money in it for Sharpton or the media. Even if it had been Ms. Fuller who was beaten instead of Mr. Williams, Sharpton and the main stream media would have ignored it. Only white on black incidents draw donations and advertising dollars. Silly me.

Why The $15 An Hour Demands Are Delusional

Dental assistant, skilled construction laborer, emergency medical technician, security officer, window cleaner (the kind where you ride a scaffold up and down), warehouse associate...

These are examples of jobs in this country today that, depending on where you live, pay around $15 an hour. Each and every one of them require training - some require education. Some of these can be entry level positions for the person who really wants to move up and be more successful. Dental assistants often become dental hygienists. Construction laborers can become foremen - particularly if they work hard and study to improve their knowledge of the trade. EMTs often become paramedics, physician's assistants, even doctors. And I don't know anyone who works their entire career as a security officer or window cleaner - but I'm sure there may be some.

My point is - each of the jobs listed above requires some skills over and above being able to put a Big Mac together or put fries in the hot grease, set the timer and pull them out when the alarm goes off. Oh - and pouring salt on them doesn't take much skill either.

The demands for higher wages among entry level, minimum wage workers is getting ridiculous. Unless you move up into a position of more authority such as department lead or management, jobs at McDonald's, Burger King, and even entry level jobs at Walmart weren't meant to be a career. They're meant to be a stepping stone to higher paying, more responsible jobs. And to demand $15 an hour for them even as other people have to get an education and/or trade school training to get that wage shows the entitlement mentality of 2015 Americans.

Some of the statements of the protesters spell it out pretty well. Some of them took to Twitter yesterday.

"EVERY working American citizen deserves to be able to live comfortably."

"Everyone who works full-time in America deserves to earn a comfortable living."

"Everyone deserves to live comfortably if they work hard, and working in fast food is working hard."

Everyone deserves it? Really? Why is that, exactly? The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The "pursuit" of happiness is guaranteed - not happiness itself. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees anyone the right to make a "comfortable living." That falls under the pursuit of happiness and is something you must do for yourself. Demanding that someone pay you more than you deserve is a form of that pursuit, I suppose - but it's an unreasonable form. 

Today's society, particularly young people, believe they have a right to whatever they want just because they want it. It shows in everything they do.

I got my first job working in a dairy store when I was 17. I earned minimum wage, which was $2 an hour. I worked there for a year before moving to a job with JC Penney Co at $2.10 an hour. After six months, because I was a good and faithful employee, I got a raise to a whopping $2.20 an hour! 

Following that I worked as a delivery driver for a small bakery. I was paid straight commission on everything I sold. It averaged a bit more than minimum wage but I often worked 12 hour days and those days began at 4AM. I was happy to have a job and happy that someone was paying me. 

I went into the Air Force after that and my hourly wage was $2.34. Of course, I did have the advantage of three square meals a day, clothing provided, and a place to live, but to get that I had to volunteer to serve my country and put my life on the line when necessary. I don't think there are too many McDonald's employees who do that on a daily basis.

In 2015, a person who enlists in the military gets paid just over $9 an hour. To average E4 with six years service makes $15 an hour. And many of them go to war. Again - the military person gets the benefits of housing, food and medical care - but he or she puts their life on the line every day to get those. They're away from their homes and families and often out of their own country. Somebody please tell me again how a soldier with five years military service should be paid less than some kid flipping burgers in a fast food joint. I'll wait.

One woman I heard on the radio yesterday said "I need my $15 an hour because $8.10 an hour just isn't enough!" Her statement alone - "I need my $15 an hour," shows here entitlement attitude. It's not her money. The money belongs to the company for which she works until she earns it. And if the company believed she believed $15 an hour she'd be getting paid that much.

I find it fascinating that people accept a job at a set wage then demand, without any other changes, a higher wage simply because they think they deserve it. It's similar to when I worked for the government. Subordinate staff would demand outstanding performance evaluations just for showing up to work. Each time a performance review or annual performance evaluation was due I would solicit information from all of those on whom I reported on any accomplishments I might not know about that they believed should be included in their evaluation. Rarely did I get a response. But when I rated their performance honestly many of them became upset because they believed they were better than average. When I asked them for specific examples they could provide none - yet they wanted the above average rating anyway. Entitlement mentality.

After 8 years of military service my pay, as an E5 Staff Sergeant, was $6.50 an hour. When I got out I worked three part-time jobs, all at minimum wage or below (one was commissioned sales) until I got hired by the federal government. I did what I had to do to support my family. I didn't complain about wages. I didn't demand I be paid twice what the job offered. I took the jobs willingly and gratefully because it was what I needed to do.

Forgive me if I have no sympathy for these crybabies demanding double pay for entry level work. What happens to the skilled/educated labor force if burger flippers get a 100% pay increase? Do they get it as well? How many companies will be forced out of business because they simply cannot meet that expectation? The crybabies don't care; not as long as they get what they want. Their signs say "We are worth more!" Says who?

"Jews For Hillary"... Seriously?

Without a doubt, Barack Obama is the most anti semite US President in my lifetime. It's obvious in his speech and his actions that he hates Israel and hates their Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He has threatened Israel, tried to tell them what they can and can't do with their own territory, and has temper tantrums when Netanyahu does anything he doesn't like. He has even gone as far as to say the United States will "re-evaluate" our relationship with Israel if Netanyahu won't do what Obama wants.

In 2008, 74% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama for President. Four years later, after Obama had begun his verbal assault on Israel, a surprising 70% voted for him again. Why would that be?

According to Ben Shapiro, Jewish conservative talk show host, it's because "the vast majority of Jews don’t care about Judaism or Israel. They care about secular leftism, which is their religion."

Shapiro says "American Jews are the least religious religious group in America. Only 41 percent say that their religion is important to them in their daily life, according to a December 2012 Gallup poll. Just 30 percent of Jews say they are very attached to Israel. Only 43 percent of Jews have ever been to Israel. And just 40 percent of Jews believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people."

I'm not Jewish but I've been to Israel. I went as a Christian to see the Israeli and Biblical history. I seem to feel more of a commitment to Israel than most American Jews. And that's sad.

Shapiro continues. "According to the Pew poll, 73 percent of Jews said it was about remembering the Holocaust. Just 19 percent said it was about observing Jewish law."

"Most (American) Jews aren’t Jewish in any real sense beyond ethnic identification," Shapiro writes. "They have nothing to do with Torah, the five books of Moses. They have nothing to do with the ethical system posited by Biblical Judaism. They have nothing to do with the mitzvot, the commandments. They have nothing to do with Israel."

So basically, most American Jews are merely secular Democrats who, for reasons of pride it seems, identify as Jewish even though they do not practice Jewish customs and traditions faithfully. That would explain why, when they voted for Obama, they voted against Israel and her preservation. And that's pretty sad.

Now comes Hillary Clinton running for President. In her (failed) book, Clinton called Israel an "occupying force in Palestine." She criticized Israel's policies toward the Palestinian controlled territories. 

“When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted.”

I visited some of the Palestinian territories when I was there in February and March. I didn't see anything that indicated Israel was the cause of denial of dignity or self-determination for the Palestinians. In fact, I saw a people who seem to be their own worst enemy. They blame Israel for "oppression" but their cities are falling apart and they have allowed Hamas to infiltrate their government. And Hamas uses any and all monies that come in to mount attacks against Israel.

The Jewish Israelis accommodate the Palestinians in all of their cities. (Palestinian citizens are considered Israelis.) Palestinians rarely accommodate Jews in the cities they control. In Bethlehem, the city where Christ was born, there are no Jews left and only a handful of Christians. Jews and Palestinians in most areas of the West Bank live and work together. Gaza seems to be the area where the animosity toward Jews is the worst. That would be expected since Gaza is the home to the Palestinian Authority (the Palestinian government) and the headquarters of Hamas in Israel.

It seems clear that Hillary being elected will cause President Obama's failed foreign policies, particularly policies toward Israel, to continue. Yet there are American Jewish political action committees (PACs) working to get her elected. That fact only reinforces what Mr. Shapiro said - that most American Jews don't much care about Israel or what happens to her. I find it both interesting and shameful. If American Jews have turned their backs on Israel they shouldn't call themselves Jewish.

One of the best things Jews around the world can do for Israel is to back the Republican candidate for the American Presidency next year and urge their American counterparts, friends and family members to do the same. As a rule, Republicans and conservatives in America have always backed Israel and continue to do so today. We love Israel and her people. They have been our greatest ally and friend in the Middle East over the years and despite the damage President Obama has done, most Americans want that to continue. 

Fortunately for the American people, Israelis who pay attention know that Obama doesn't speak for most Americans when it comes to Israel. I felt fully at home in Israel. The people were warm and accomodating and made me feel more welcome that I do in many American cities. And I will return.

Let us hope the majority of Americans understand the destructive force that is the Democrat party and Hillary Clinton when it comes to Israel. Perhaps American Jews will wake up before it's too late. But then - their voting record indicates that's not going to happen.

The Headline Shapes The Opinion Regardless Of The Content

It's interesting to see what passes for "news" these days. It's also interesting to see who does and does not understand the difference between news shows and articles and opinion shows and articles. But whether you're talking news or opinion, the headline is what shapes people's attitudes toward the content.

I saw a news report from the Huffington Post this morning about a man in Marana, Arizona, a pleasant community on the Northwest side of Tucson. The headline read "Police Car Slams Into Suspect On The Street" and the byline underneath it said "Dramatic footage released Tuesday shows an Arizona police officer run into a man walking down the street in broad daylight."

Sounds horrible, right? In what has become typical with liberal news outlets these days, they make it sound like the big, bad police officer ran this poor, innocent man down with his car for no credible reason. Except there was a credible reason. Back in February, that man was walking down the street firing a high powered rifle into the air/neighborhood. Police tailed him from a safe distance for a while, ordering him to put the rifle down. He allegedly pointed it at at least one officer before the officer in question decided the man was a danger to everyone and took him down in the only way he could think of at the time.

The suspect survived, spent two days in the hospital and is now in jail on multiple felony charges including robbery, burglary, arson, home invasion, vehicle theft, and felony possession of a stolen weapon. If one didn't read past the headlines they wouldn't have a clue as to what the truth is.

Sadly, conservative media outlets do it as well, particularly internet sites. While I don't have a specific example right now (I did look for one), they are just as guilty of putting out a headline that misleads the reader into believing something other than the truth. I've seen many of them posted and re-posted on Facebook, where many Americans get their news. And the sad thing is - many people respond to the headline without actually reading the article. And that's the whole point.

It seems to be getting worse. Over the last couple of years I've had people make negative comments about one or more of my blog posts just from reading the title. Sometimes I use sarcasm in the title and make it sound positive for Obama and/or the left, then destroy them in the narrative. But some people don't get to the narrative. They just read the title and respond. When I ask if they actually read the content they say they didn't.

Thus the problem we have with uninformed voters. They will listen to what they hear on their TVs and radios, and read headlines on the internet and in  newspapers, without really digging deeper to learn the truth. Many decide who to vote for in that manner then wonder why things didn't work out the way they expected. A blatant example of it was the woman who, in 2008, said she was voting for Obama because he was going to pay her mortgage, put gas in her car and give her a free phone. Six years later she is lamenting about why she got none of the things she expected. Meet Peggy Joseph.

“During that time, we needed a change, but change for the better, not for the worse,” an enlightened Joseph said in a recent interview.

“He had a very big voice, just like the Wizard of Oz,” she said. “The wizard was this little teeny-teeny tiny man, and I think it’s the same thing with Obama, the man behind the curtain.”

“I was Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. That’s how I feel.”

“What I learned is never trust the Wizard,” Joseph says today. “It’s within ourselves to have the determination, the courage, and the brains, to bring us to our destiny.”

Sadly for Ms. Joseph, she believed the hype and voted accordingly. (I can't help but wonder if she voted for him a second time...?) Like many other Americans, she didn't do any homework before voting and didn't demand proper vetting of Obama before he was elected. And now, much to the detriment of our country, many of those same voters will cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, just because she's Hillary Clinton. They won't care about her past or her record. They won't research who she really is. The main stream media has been pushing Hillary for a couple of years now. That's all those voters need to hear. 

They also believe the liberal lies that Republicans and conservatives hate minorities and women and want old people to die rather than get medical care. They believe it because that's what they hear on their favorite liberal TV channel. They believe it because liberal politicians and pundits spew that rhetoric on a regular basis when it comes time for another election. They believe it because they refuse to make the time and effort to do a little research and become informed. And we wonder how our nation has fallen so far....