White Privilege And Racism Or Political Privilege And Corruption?

shutterstock_226795639

As long as there are humans on this earth, there will be racism and discrimination. But don’t let our politicians fool you into believing it only happens to blacks fueled strictly by whites. Racism is not a one way street. It is committed and experienced by all. We have reached a turning point in our society where our political leaders are no longer setting an example for better behavior and tolerance or even cheering for the progress we have already made, but are fueling polarization and divisiveness, through political privilege and corruption.

Do you remember a time, only a few years ago,  when it didn’t matter to the majority of Americans who you were, what color you were, where you came from and what religion you practiced as long as we were all allowed the same liberties? Today, the political elite and corrupt have grown in power by fostering an environment that has pitted us against each other based on race, religious beliefs, gender, sexual preference and political affiliation.

Do black lives matter? Of course they do. All lives matter. However, the political elite and corrupt will have you believe that racism is not only alive and well within the United States, but that it is a purposeful cancer that no longer has a cure but has metastasized and must be stopped by literally blaming and removing all whites from our sight. The political elite and corrupt have chosen not to turn the other cheek, but to turn the other way while villages are burned and pillaged in the name of racial justice.

Is the United States a nation that welcomes all who wish to practice the religion of their choice freely and without retribution? Yes it is, however, the political elite and corrupt fuel the distrust of the Islamic religion by refusing to name, or fight a radical Islamic army who screams for our death. A President who choses to visit a mosque that supports terrorism and extremism while ignoring the mosques of the very Muslims he claims to protect that have chosen to practice their faith in a peaceful manner. The political elite and corrupt who have chosen to fuel the hate and distrust of the Muslim community while claiming to foster an environment of inclusion and trust. The political elite and corrupt who demand that the very religion upon which this nation was founded, stop publicly displaying and sharing their beliefs within our communities and schools for fear of offending, while promoting diversity through forced Islamic indoctrination and acceptance of a religious doctrine that goes against our very core beliefs. They no longer support the constitution that gives us the right to freely worship the religion of our choosing, but have chosen to pit us against each other, which further fuels the discrimination and hate speech they promise to punish.

The political elite and corrupt claim inequality and the demise of the middle class lays at the feet of a greedy corporate America,  yet have they actually destroyed the free market system by over-regulating, supporting special interests and lobbyists by taking their bribes, and bailing out the corrupt corporations who they have allowed to become to big to fail? Is it the political elite and corrupt who demonize the top one percent and promise to make them pay their fair share, when they actually already pay over 85% of all taxes? Is it the political elite and corrupt who promise to take down the corruption of large corporations while under the table take their cash in exchange for the very political favors that make them too big to fail?

Do the American people support Immigration? Of course they do. However the political elite and corrupt would have the masses believe that we are all bigots and racists because our citizens expect all who come here to support, believe in and respect our flag and the American way. They demonize any American citizen who insists Immigration go hand in hand with the protection of our sovereignty, our economic success, our continued cultural beliefs and rights to liberty without the threat of our individual or collective demise.

It was Teddy Roosevelt who said,

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American .”

“We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.” 

In this day and age,  the political elite and corrupt have blatantly ignored our immigration laws, opened our borders and forced the American people to pick up the tab for those who come illegally. They offer them homes, education and healthcare,  while denying these same basic needs to our Veterans, our true American heroes,  who have fought and died to support the freedoms we all enjoy. The political elite and corrupt accuse us of being unwelcoming and discriminatory while they fight to allow non citizens to pack our voting booths, diminishing our voices and ensuring their own continued lush lives on the Hill, funded by the very citizens they promised to protect.

The political elite and corrupt have created an environment of polarization and divisiveness because it allows them to take control of a chaotic situation of their own creation. When the United States citizens, regardless of political affiliation,  cheer for those who purposefully deceive us and are committed to fundamentally changing our way of life, while bowing to those who wish us harm, then the American people have lost their way. We the American people, from all races and ethnicities, must stand together as one and recognize that instead of fighting each other we must commit to pointing the finger of blame at those who are truly our enemy….the political elite and corrupt inside our own government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Obama Shuts Down Terrorist Investigations Calling It Racial Profiling.

shutterstock_84125155

A former employee of Homeland security is blowing the whistle on Homeland Security. He claims political correctness and the Obama Administration is preventing  Homeland Security from investigating terrorist organizations. Why would political correctness stop the investigation of potential terrorists? This administration calls it profiling and discrimination against Muslims.

In a speech after the San Bernadino attacks, President Obama made a speech citing,

“We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam….If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate….. it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination.  It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country.  It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently.”  

These words from our President sound reasonable. However, when the same administration defies reason by shutting down terrorist investigations by Homeland Security, because he feels it profiles Muslims, then you must ask yourself whether he is acting in the true interest of the United States and it people. Has political correctness taken over common sense and trumped our safety? At what point does the personal feelings of a group of terrorists become less important than the slaughter of innocent Americans going about their daily lives.

In a recent report on the Kelly File, the facts about political correctness and its negative effects into the investigation of radical Islamic terrorism was revealed.

[Philip Haney’s job with HSA was to investigate individuals with suspected radicalized ties to terrorism. He had received a commendation letter for successfully tracking down 300 terrorists. When he noticed a trend of people with radicalized ties coming into the United States, he began looking into a collection of global networks that were infiltrating radical Islamists into the U.S. A year into the investigation, he was visited by the State Department and the Homeland Security Civil Rights Division.  They said tracking these group and individuals was problematic because they were Islamic groups and it was considered profiling. A memo was sent out denying any investigation tied to Islamic groups. As a result, his investigation was shut down.  Sixty seven of his records were deleted. Among those records were investigations into the mosque in San Bernadino which was tied to Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, responsible for the terrorist attacks in the same city. Haney said if his work had continued he may have been able to thwart the attack in San Bernadino.  A year ago he notified Congress and Department of Homeland Security about these issues, yet the investigation was not re-opened and the HSA retaliated by pulling him from his duties and revoking his security clearance.]

Under the Obama administration, we have seen the dismantling of intelligence in Iraq, an executive order banning CIA “enhanced interrogations” and the closing of “black Sites.  Under the Bush Administration, three suspected terrorsts were waterboarded and as a result divulged information on other terrorists responsible for  the 2002 bombings in Bali and on Al Qaeda leaders. While over 100 prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have gone back to terrorism, President Obama is still determined to release the remaining prisoners and close Gitmo. Should the United States continue to “play by the rules” when our enemies refuse to do the same?

As all Americans have witnessed of late, President Obama has no problem working up a sweat over the gun rights of American citizens and has promised to pass, by executive order, strict gun laws bypassing Congress and our Constitutional rights. Still at the forefront is the administration’s view that Global warming is our biggest national security threat, and along with Bernie Sanders, and other Democrats actually believe that climate change is the main cause of terrorism today.

The real question is why President Obama has no problems calling out lawful gun owning Americans but still refuses to link self-professed Islamic terrorism to Islam. Now, he has gone so far as to shut down actual successful terrorist investigations because they happen to involve radical Islamic Muslims and calls it profiling. God help us all!

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Temporarily Banning Islamic immigration: Politically InCorrect or A Matter of Security?

shutterstock_339907127

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.  Is this a smart security move or is it just plain politically incorrect as most on the left and the right have spent the last 2 days pontificating?

Trump’s comments have been called un-American, racist and bigoted. However, if radical Islamist extremists are calling for the destruction of the West, should we not be reviewing our immigration policies that are actually legally allowing radicals into our country? Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernadino terrorist,  entered into the United States on a “fiancee” visa in July of 2014, even though later investigations into her background revealed glaring red flags.  Some left leaning publications like the Huffington Post, suggest that terrorists gaining access through the refugee path is highly unlikely, however, the facts remain a stubborn thing.  We know that at least one of the Paris terrorists who killed over 120 people actually entered into the country as a  Syrian refugee while two others carried false Turkish passports.

The actual problem lies in our porous borders, our broken visa program and the seemingly non-existent concern of our leaders as to who has actually entered into the United States. Yet with all these threats constantly being thrown at us, they continue to open the arms of our nation to refugees and an untold number of illegals, ignoring the potential threats that they may pose.

While Trump is supporting the temporary halt of all Muslim refugees and immigrants, and the political elite and their pundits are screaming that this is un-American and un-constitutional, we have to consider the legality of the move.  In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto, says the proposal by Trump is already a Congressional Act, Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, which says,

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The article went further in asking whether this temporary ban would violate the First Amendment.  In response they wrote,

“That is a novel legal question; as far as we know Congress has never enacted, nor the executive branch practiced, such an exclusion. But the 1972 case Kleindienst v Mandel strongly suggests the Trump proposal would pass muster.

In the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government has the authority to set immigration policy, at least as applied to nonresident aliens outweighs any free-speech claim an alien may wish to assert.”

In the end, regardless of the responses by Republicans and Democrats, fearing backlash by their parties, the American people seem to be behind the idea of temporarily halting Muslim immigrants and refugees into the United States. After all, it is the American people who are on the front lines, in theatres, at Christmas parties and just going about their lives, waiting for the bombs to go off.

I think common sense is taking hold and temporarily banning Muslim Immigration is strictly a matter of security.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Clearly The Pot Is Calling The Kettle Black!

88aa5a9708fe10faa3529b8420fc07aa

A Federal judge, James E. Shadid, a nominee of the Obama administration and the only Arab Federal judge in Illinois, was lucky enough to draw a case involving religious discrimination against Muslims.

Two Muslim drivers, hired by Star Transport, were fired for refusing  to transport alcohol as part of their job, and as a result were fired. They then sued the company for religious discrimination, supported by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and won a $240,000 settlement.

The question is not whether they were aware of the fact that Star Transport distributed alcohol, or whether or not there were alternate routes that did not involve alcohol. the real question is why the Obama administration supported this law suit?

We have seen over the past months, Christians persecuted and financially punished for religious objections involving marriage licenses and wedding cakes. When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples citing religious beliefs, she was sued by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) on behalf of all homosexuals. As a result, Judge Steven L. Bunning ordered Davis to issue the marriage licenses, threatening to hold her in contempt resulting in possible jail time and monetary fines. In the end, the court released its opinion, leaving Davis with the option of resigning her office, finding a compromise or being held in contempt of court.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry awarded $135,ooo to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, a lesbian couple, in a law suit filed by them against a Christian mom and pop bakery who refused to bake their wedding cake because of religious beliefs. A Lakewood bakery in Colorado experienced two protests, a Facebook driven boycott and a discrimination complaint from Attorney General Eric Holder , for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple because of their religious beliefs. This was also followed by the same results in cases in Gortz Haus,  Iowa,  Fleur Cakes in Oregon,  Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa, Masterpeice Cakeshop, Colorado, as well as many others. A Methodist owned event venue in New Jersey lost its state tax exemption and is currently being sued for refusing to host a gay wedding in 2007. Even religious institutions are not allowed to make decisions based on their religious doctrines and beliefs.

In Houston the mayor, Annise Parker, issued subpoenas, demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons involving homosexuality, gender identity or the fact that she, herself, was a lesbian. If they failed to turn them over, she would hold them in contempt of court.

The Obama administration’s attorney admitted that the “right” to same-sex marriage as determined by the Supreme Court, would result in the loss of tax exempt status of anyone or any religious institution who refuses to acquiesce.

“The tax-exempt status of churches which stick with their traditional beliefs on marriage in the wake of such a ruling won’t be an “issue” for the left. Instead, their elimination will become a goal.” (Tom Blumer @ Newsbusters)

Recently, a flight attendant, Charee Stanley,  who converted to Islam after taking the job, refused to serve alcohol on a flight and was placed on administrative leave, by her employer. In response, Mrs. Stanley said,

“I don’t think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living,” Stanley said. “I shouldn’t have to choose between one or the other, because they’re both important.”

When comparing the Davis and Stanley cases, we see Kim Davis became and remains the target of attacks and ridicule by Obama, Democrats and the mainstream media all while Mrs. Stanley is celebrated as a victim for hers.

President Obama  recently spoke at a Democratic LGBT gala and made it clear that the United States is a country where religious freedom is embraced and tradition is respected, but at the same time stated,

“We also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”

Has the United States now become a place where ones constitutional rights are realized on the backs of other’s religious rights? Will the Obama administration and Democrats continue to teeter back and forth on the “rule of law,” as it pertains to their agenda?

How can the administration stand up for the religious rights of Muslims while persecuting Christians for their religious beliefs? Obviously, Obama and Democrats have become the pot calling the kettle black!

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Will Obama’s Legacy will be World War III”

Untitled-1

 

 

Obama made, yet, another speech yesterday. but what made this one different from the rest? This one will go down in history as the United States’ surrender to terrorism. If we have not been destroyed by nuclear bombs, there is no doubt future generations will be studying this speech and drawing parallels to the Munich Agreement, which is regarded as a failed act of appeasement by Britain and France to Germany and Adolph Hitler, a mistake  which led to the beginning of World War II.

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who surrendered the agreement with Hitler claimed,

“My objective is peace in Europe,  this trip is the way to that peace.”

At this meeting, Adolph Hitler deceived, lied and manipulated the British leader into believing that bending to his will would spare Britain and France from a war that were not prepared to fight. During these negotiations, Hitler promised Chamberlain that he would refrain from military action, yet secretly he continued to plan his attack militarily. The sacrifice in this agreement? Czechoslovakia, an ally of Britain and France, abandoned by them to appease Hitler. As Chamberlain proclaimed he had secured “peace in our time,” World War II began.

Is this story beginning to sound familiar? Let’s look at the players in this charade.

Adolph Hitler played by Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of Iran

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain played by Barack Obama

Czechoslovakia played by Israel.

In his speech yesterday, Obama did make one statement of truth,

“Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend.”

What about this statement?

“Iran will not enrich uranium…..for at least 15 years.”

There is that 15 year limit again. What happens after 15 years?

“Before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists…”

This a statement from the community organizer who graduated from Harvard with a degree in Constitutional law but has absolutely no understanding of the Constitution he has continually disregarded. But, he and John Kerry are indeed nuclear scientists.

President Obama further stated that if Republicans were to “repeat these arguments long enough, they would get some traction.”

This is obviously a theory he understands and uses daily…..say it enough and it will become truth. (If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor).

“If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors can get access with as little as 24 hours”

Now wait for it……wait…..then he says,

“And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days…we will be watching….”

So there goes the 24 hour claim.

“It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years, but that’s how arms control agreements work….”

“It is true that IF Iran lives up to its commitments, it WILL gain access to roughly $56 BILLION of its own money….”

“Our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.”

And I have some swamp land in Florida for sale.

“Now this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.”

“…Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.” 

and while Obama strongly pushes this deal he says,

“The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran my claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.”

If Iran has always found a way to fund its terrorist efforts, why would anyone believe they will agree to stop their pursuit of Nuclear weapons?

“And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.”

Really? I am confused as to what this has to do with our non strategy on ISIL.

And then the real kicker…

“It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.”

Did he really just compare Republicans to the Iranians chanting “Death to America?” Is this really the decorum of a sitting President of the Free World? Although we have all become accustomed to his nonstop demonization of one American group or another in every one of his speeches, this takes the cake.

Then the best lie yet….

“….and a more understandable motivation behind the opposition of this deal….a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that , as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.”

What?  From the man who has racked up a large list of offensive comments and behaviors towards Benjamin Netanyahu, here are just a few.

  • Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family.
  • He has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.
  • President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:
  • In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Obama stated, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza.
  • In an interview, a White House official calls Netanyahu a “chickenshit.”

I would not call this a stalwart friendship with Israel. It has become painfully obvious to most Americans that President Obama no longer supports Israel, our one democratic ally in the middle east, yet has chosen to cuddle up with and appease our enemies.

Can we talk about what Obama did not say in his speech? How about the fact that the United States, with taxpayer dollars, will be offering Iran a $150 BILLION signing bonus? Exactly where is that money coming from? Yes…the U.S. taxpayer.

Back in April of this year, President Obama finally relented, after intense pressure by both Republicans and Democrats alike, to give Congress a voice on the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. The bill, passed in the Senate, requires the President to give Congress 60 days to review the deal and take a vote.

However, Secretary of State John Kerry claims the deal with Iran is NOT a treaty because he feels  getting consent from the U.S. Senate would “become physically impossible.”

When asked by Democrat Brad Sherman (CA), if the White House would comply with the law if the Senate were to override a veto on the deal with Iran, John Kerry replied,

“I will need to consult with President Obama before answering such a question.”

As we have all seen during Obama’s tenure as President, he has refused to follow the rule of law and decided which laws to enforce based on his personal feelings and how it supports his agenda to fundamentally change the United States.

In a step that has become typically Obama style, the president immediately went to the United Nations for a vote on the Iran deal realizing he did not have support from either Democrats or Republicans.  Again, a President who refuses to listen to the will of the people or their representatives in making major decisions that will affect the United States and generations to come. The standard reply? Yes I will follow the rule of law and listen to the representatives of the people as our Constitution demands, unless of course they don’t vote my way.

President Obama has become so determined to define his legacy that he is willing to sacrifice the American people, their children and their grandchildren, regardless of the outcome.

Like Prime Minister Chamberlain in his so-called deal with Hitler, the world suffered the consequences and no doubt, if this deal is forced through by the Obama regime, his legacy will not doubt, be World War III.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Marriage: A Ceremony Complicated By Government Interference

shutterstock_130862363The Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is the new norm.  But the real question is, should the government have any say in what constitutes marriage at all? What if there was a way to stop the controversy? What if we took government out of the business of marriage completely?

We have seen, over the past 6 years, government remove any signs of “Faith” from our schools, our government offices, our memorials, our military and our foreign policy.  But why then, are we allowing the government to make a decision about what most believe is a religious ceremony?

How can a government who claims to support the “freedom of religion,” threaten to take away tax exempt status and any and all government benefits due under the law, because religious beliefs don’t align with the government’s new regulations or interpretations of the law? Are we now going to allow our government to define and regulate our religious doctrines? Hillary Clinton and President Obama have both suggested that religious organizations and believers need to change their views regarding marriage and abortion. However, they don’t seem to understand that our religious beliefs come from God not the government and therefore cannot be regulated or mandated.

How did the government get involved in marriage in the first place?  In an article by Stephanie Coontz, titled “Taking Marriage Private,” she says,

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

So in history, marriage was not a complicated thing, until Uncle Sam decided to regulate it.

The word marriage should be replaced with “unions,” in the eyes of the government. Unions between two people who want to spend their lives together. Ceremonies then are chosen based on personal or religious beliefs and/or preferences. No ones belief system trampled or punished.

Today, some “relationships,” may have nothing to do with a life long commitment, love, or even children, but a necessity of life. In order for the government to keep track of unions for beneficiary information, why not apply for a “benefit distribution license.” All Americans would then have the right to determine who can and will receive the benefits they have worked for and earned, without complicated regulation by the government. Whether it be a husband, wife, sister, brother, cousin or friend. As we have all seen, the more government becomes involved the more complicated it becomes and the more regulations it requires.  Therein lies the problem…government interference.

Government cannot continue to step on the rights and beliefs of others while enforcing laws that they conveniently  label as “tolerance,” when it is anything but tolerant. Those who believe in gay “marriage” cannot force those who believe in traditional marriage to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and a right to a union of your choice should not morph into a mechanism to destroy those who believe differently.  How can anyone who has fought for their rights be content to strip others of their rights in order to realize their own?  Ben Carson asked a very relevant question,

“What position can a person take who has absolutely no animosity toward gay people but believes in traditional marriage that would be satisfactory to them?”

My answer would be to take government out of the equation and offer up “Civil Unions,” “Free Choice” and “Benefit Distribution Licenses.”

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Full Disclosure For All!

shutterstock_144659312

Our government has pushed food labeling to the extreme. Demanding that calories, fat, sugar and other ingredients be fully visible to the public in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about the food they eat. But what about informing the public about the news they receive on a daily basis? Does the public deserve the same transparency about their news sources that the government is now demanding from food manufacturers and restaurants?  After all, if how the public is informed  will affect the way this country is governed, shouldn’t the they be informed what political party a news anchor, reporter or station supports before they get their daily dose of political propaganda?

Have you ever wondered about the news anchor or the station that you watch on a daily basis? Do you know the political party of the owner of the news station you listen to on a daily basis? Do you ever wonder whether the political leanings of reporters actually affects the news they report? When a nightly news anchor choses the stories they report on a daily basis, do they choose them or alter them according to their political leanings? Does the public now receive the news in a completely unbiased format? We have all seen the political polarization that has intensified in this country over the last several years. Lines have been drawn between friends and family, relationships strained, friends lost and unfriended on Facebook over political opinions and leanings. But what about the very people who are supposed to inform us, without personal feelings, about the most important events happening around us on a daily basis?

Did you know that all journalists are required to follow a Code of Ethics? As part of these ethics, news anchors are supposed to  “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,” while simultaneously “seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”  But, is this what they do today? Are you actually receiving a fair and comprehensive account of the news or are you receiving political propaganda and half-truths according to the political leanings of the station and reporter feeding you the news on a daily basis? Are they using the news as a platform to further the political agenda of the party they support?

The American people used to count on the press to act as a check and balance with our political leaders. To question motives, decisions, actions and ethics. Would President Nixon have resigned  because of Watergate had Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein not investigated and exposed his illegal actions? Has it become obvious that this era of reporters and so-called journalists no longer honor their ethical responsibilities over their personal beliefs and views?

As we are now headed into a big election year, 2016 stands to be the most important election this country has seen in years. It is not only about which party will lead us the next four years, but which direction this country will be headed.  The Democratic and Republican parties have chosen polar opposite directions in which they believe the country should be headed. It is imperative that the public be fully and correctly informed about the platforms that each party supports. It is imperative that the public be fully and correctly informed about the actions the Democrats and Republicans have taken and will take in order to follow the platforms they support and further the agenda they have chosen to follow.  So should we, the people, be given full disclosure about the very people and stations that deliver the news?

George Stephanopoulos:  Host of Good Morning America and This Week with George Stephanopoulos. George is a Democrat, and served as communications director for Bill Clinton and later became his White House communications director.  It was recently discovered that he donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation all while he grilled Peter Schweitzer on his recent book, Clinton Cash, which casts a shadow of doubt on the source and use of  Clinton charity funds.

Christiane Amanpour: Anchor CNN. Christiane is a Democrat and is married to former US Assistant Secretary of State, James Rubin, a democrat and an informal adviser to Hilary Clinton, presidential candidate.

Chris Cuomo: Democrat and former host of Good Morning America, 20/20 and currently CNN’s morning show, “New Day.” Chris’s father, Mario Cuomo was the former Democratic Mayor of New York. His brother, Andrew Cuomo is the current Democratic New York Governor.

Brian Williams:  Anchor ABC and Democrat. He began his career as a White House intern under Jimmy Carter. Recently, he was suspended for 6 months due to fabricated news stories.

Savannah Gutherie: Co-anchor of the Today Show,  and co-anchor of the MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown,  Savannah is currently married to Democratic political and communications consultant, Michael Feldman.

Rachael Maddow: Anchor of the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said that she was able to deliver news “with agenda, but not hysteria.” A Newsweek profile noted, “At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence… But for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan.”

Bill O’Reilly:  Anchor of the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, a conservative station, is a registered “independent” yet a traditionalist. He is married to Maureen McPhilmy, a public relations representative.

Megyn Kelly:  Anchor of the Kelly File on Fox News considers herself to be a moderate and reasonable. She often speaks in ways that run counter to Fox’s image. She is married to Douglas Brunt, who is a full time writer and novelist.

Did you know?

  1. ABC News President, Ben Sherwood, is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national security adviser to President Obama.
  2. CNN’s deputy Washington Bureau chief, , is married to Tom Nides, who was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Clinton.
  3. Former White House press secretary, Jay Carney’s wife, Claire Shipman, is a veteran reporter for ABC, and currently is the senior national correspondent for Good Morning America.
  4. NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to Michael Gottlieb, who is currently employed at the Obama White House counsel’s office.
  5. Michele Norris of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” is married to Broderick Johnson, who worked for Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign and then moved on as an unpaid adviser to Obama’s campaign in 2008, and full-time advisor in 2011.
  6. The Post’s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services under the Obama Administration.
  7. David Rhodes, CBS news division president is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign policy specialist under Obama. Both David and Benjamin also work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi.

Let’s go even further and disclose that only six corporations own and control the majority of mass media outlets in the United States.

  1. Disney
  2. CBS Corporation
  3. News Corporation
  4. Viacom
  5. Time Warner
  6. Comcast

So what happens when a news story involves bad publicity for one of these companies, or goes against the political agenda they are pushing? Could the story be shut down or underplayed in the media? The Telecommunication Act of 1996, signed into effect by then President Bill Clinton, enabled this handful of corporations to expand their power and enabled tighter control of information. Chris Hedges argues that corporate media control “of nearly everything we read, watch or hear,” is an aspect of what political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. This is defined as a situation “where every natural resource and every living being is commoditized ad exploited to collapse as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism.”

As the sources for all our news gets smaller and smaller, and the majority seemingly controlled by one political faction, it is time to demand full disclosure before every news cast so the public is truly informed who is spoon-feeding them their news for the day.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

What Does History Tell Us About Slavery And Racism?

org_pop_topred

Which political party really supported slavery and continue to further the cause of racism?  Most people will immediately point their finger at Republicans and Conservatives.  You know those evil old white folks who would rather see you encased in chains than an actual contributing citizen of the United States? Well if you believe this, then I have some swamp land in Florida I need to sell. If you look at  history, it will definitely prove you wrong.

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was committed to the violent intimidation of blacks, Republicans and northerners.  It was a group that was established by Democrats to fight against the political and economic freedoms for blacks.  The first leader of the KKK was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who made his fortune as a cotton planter and a slave trader. He later fought in the civil war to protect his right to own slaves and was well-known for the Fort Pillow Massacre in 1864.  Forrest marched 1500-2500 troops to take over Ft. Pillow which was being guarded by about 600 Union soldiers, half of them black. When his confederate soldiers took the fort, the Union soldiers surrendered and instead of  taking them as prisoners, Forrest massacred all 300 black soldiers.  After the war ended, Forrest resisted the Reconstruction and became the first Grand Wizard of the KKK.

President Lincoln’s Republican victory for President, led to the addition of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution which called for the “utter and complete destruction” of slavery, and granted blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote. The Democratic party called for the restoration of State’s rights which would have given each state the right to enforce slavery if they saw fit.  As a result, Democrats started the KKK in a resistance measure against Reconstruction.

Why was the NAACP founded? In 1905, a group of thirty-two prominent African-American leaders met to discuss the challenges facing people of color and possible strategies and solutions.  Through the early 1900s, legislatures dominated by white Democrats ratified new constitutions and laws creating barriers to voter registration and more complex election rules. Black voter registration and turnout dropped markedly in the South as a result. Men who had been voting for thirty years in the South were told they did not “qualify” to register. As a result the Niagara Movement began and years later, 7 of the members joined the board of the NAACP. The NAACP spent a decade seeking federal legislation against lynching. However, Southern Democrats voted as a block against it or used the filibuster in the Senate to block its passage.  Southern states, at the time, were dominated by Democrats. They created “white only” primaries to block blacks from the political process.

Franklin Roosevelt was the Democratic President of the U.S from 1933-1945.  While in office, Roosevelt refused to support the Costigan-Wagner Anti-Lynching Bill that would have punished sheriffs who failed to protect their prisoners from lynch mobs. Even after the lynching of Rubin Stacy in 1935, which drew National attention, Roosevelt refused to budge. Why? He was afraid of the political ramifications to his career.

In 1958, it was the Republican party and President Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. He also established the Civil Rights Commission and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was finally passed under Lyndon Johnson, with a Republican majority.  LBJ asked Republican Senator Dirksen, the Senate minority leader to assist him in passing the bill, and as a result Dirksen played a pivotal role in the passage of the Act.  Prior to his assassination,  President Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in 1963 to line up votes for the bill’s passage. A Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, Howard W. Smith,  indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. When taking office for Kennedy, President Johnson asked for support from his friend and mentor Senator Richard Russell, who refused. A Democrat from Georgia, and the leader of the Southern Democrats in the Senate, Russell and his followers continued to oppose the civil rights bill to the very end. The final vote was 72-18. Republicans had the majority of the “yeas” and all the ‘nays, came from Democrats. If it had fallen on the shoulders of  Democrats alone to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it never would have passed.

Even Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr, former Democratic Congressman and African-American,  explained in an interview with Angela McGlowan on her book “Bamboozled,” that the Democrats were the party of segregation and said,

“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag.  It was our party’s flag.  That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats.  That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”

Now, lets talk about the Jim Crow laws. In 1885 a southern black journalist, T. McCants Stewart said,

“I can stop in and drink a glass of soda and be more politely waited upon than in some parts of New England.” 

Why?

The Republicans had passed amendments to the Constitution that had given blacks the vote, citizenship and equal protection under the law. However  a national Democratic party compromise to gain Southern support for the presidential election resulted in the government withdrawing federal troops from the South returning it to white rule. As the Republican party had fallen from national power, blacks would lose all the rights they had gained and their rights and freedoms would be made illegal through Jim Crow laws, passed by Southern, white Democrats.

Based on so much history in supporting slavery and Jim Crow laws, why do Democrats continue to win 95% of the black vote?  Stephen A. Smith recommends,

“For one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican.”

Why not? The majority of blacks have been voting for Democrats and have seen no improvements in their lives.  The statistics speak for themselves. President Obama’s approval ratings remains high within the black community, however, his policies have hurt them dramatically. The U.S labor force participation rate for blacks is currently at 61% and for black teenagers, it is 25.7%. The unemployment rate for black adults is over 10% and for teenagers is at 25%. The percentage of blacks below the poverty rate has also increased under Obama at 27.2%, and household incomes have fallen to $34,598. Home ownership has fallen and food stamp recipients have risen from 7.4 million to 12.2 million between 2008 and 2013 under Obama.

A black activist, Alfonzo Rachel explains in his recent video, where he speaks to the black community, why the Democrats are the party of slavery and victimization,

“You do realize that slavery was abolished like 150 years ago? Yet your mind is still in the fields, a place where you have never been. Yet you want to stay brain chained to a place where Democrats wanted to keep you and still want to keep you. You think the Democrats have changed and that Republicans are not the party of Lincoln anymore.  Democrats haven’t changed. They still want you to be dependent on the master and there still dependent on you, but now instead of using blacks to farm cotton they now use you to farm votes. And you have been suckered into believing that this off-balance circle of dependency is Democrats doing something for black folks. If Democrats do so much for you, why are you still so angry? Why are you still saying we shall overcome as if it hasn’t already  happened. I will tell you why  overcoming hasn’t happened for you, because you have been suckered into voting for the party that you were supposed to overcome.”

I think Stephen A. Smith’s recommendation makes sense. If blacks lives have not improved under Democratic rule, then why not make a change? Why not take a chance and try a vote for a Republican. You might be surprised.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Islamic Cleric: “Islam is Not a Religion of Peace!”

imgres

 

There was a post trending on Facebook yesterday. A commentary by a British Muslim Cleric, Anjem Choudary, in the USA Today, defending the Paris terrorist attack on the publication, Charlie Hebdo.

Why would the USA Today give a voice to a Muslim cleric who thinks the Paris attack was well deserved? Why does the US press always give front page coverage to those who have done harm, intend to do harm, or support those who do harm? Can they not grasp the concept  that giving a voice to our enemies gives them the power they believe they deserve? Does the media understand that when they give our enemies a voice it allows them to draw in more support from the very people who want us dead?

In the opinion piece Choudry claimed that people “know the consequences”of speaking ill of Mohammad. He further confirmed what we, in the public, have known all along, but our leadership refuses to acknowledge, “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.”

What is a Muslim cleric? The dictionary defines it as a “ulema,” meaning,  “Muslim scholars trained in Islam and Islamic law.”

So now, directly from the mouth of a Muslim scholar trained in Islam and Islamic law,  Choudry has confirmed that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. He  has confirmed that believers in Islam are required to do what the Quran demands they do…..protect Muhammad at any cost.  This includes the beheading and murder of all those who refuse to convert.  It means they feel justified in the murder of innocents, even children, who refuse to convert to Islam.  How can this be ignored by our leadership. How could it be stated any more clearly?  It stands in total conflict to the dialog President Obama and other world leaders continue to push to their citizens. A continued, misguided belief that puts every individual  of the world in dire danger.  It is a philosophy and ideology that, no matter how much they deny it, will eventually be the death of us all!

When a leader of the Muslim community stands up and defends the murder of innocents in the name of Islam, we all need to listen, take him at his word, and respond appropriately.  Stop the madness. Call a spade a spade and take action to stop the ideaology….the religion of hate and murder…. within our own borders.

These leads to the obvious question as to why, in times of increased terrorist activity, that the Obama administration would welcome in a record number of Muslims.  In a recent article by Investors.com it was written  that the “Center for Immigration Studies reported between 2010 and 2013, the United States has imported more people from Muslim countries than Central America and Mexico combined.”

What if a portion of the current 300,000 new Muslim immigrants, decide to follow the cleric Choudry and decide to do whatever is necessary to defend Mohammad? How many of these immigrants are reading his opinion piece in the USA Today and as a result decide to ramp up efforts to destroy the infidels? With the number of Muslim immigrants increasing every year, we could be looking at far worse results than London and Paris combined.  If these immigrants decided to band together, or even small groups decide to do what they can to further the Islamic directive, then we will be looking at car bombings, suicide bombings, and a slew of hostage taking, beheadings and just plain havoc here on U.S. soil.

Add insult to injury,  the Obama Administration is  increasing Muslim immigration visas and he has refused to enforce deportation laws.   His recent illegal amnesty does not just apply to the “dreamers,” or those who are here getting an education and wanting to become a productive part of our society.  It includes all those here illegally, including those who view us as infidels.  As a result, anyone here supporting  Islamic terrorists will now obtain documentation, driver’s licenses and work permits, and those here on visas are not tracked after their expire. They just integrate themselves into our society, overlooked and forgotten, and like the 19 terrorists who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 are left alone to plot their revenge.

France is now suffering the consequences of their irresponsible, “politically correct” immigration policies.  The population of Muslims in France has now reached 10% of its population with over 27% supporting the Islamic State. They have radicalism spreading throughout the country creating a situation that can not be turned back.  If our leaders do not stand up and take note of the dramatic results of these “politically correct” immigration policies then we in the United States will soon be suffering the same consequences.

We ask ourselves why the Muslim population and the Muslim leaders have not taken a stand against the radical terrorist events that have been perpetrated by those within their own religion? In a conversation with a knowledgeable source regarding middle eastern relations, I was told,

“American Muslims are not standing up and screaming because they can’t. It is a philosophically impossible for them to fully reject… killing cartoonists who lampooned their Prophet because the Quran clearly states that the penalty for such things, is summary death.  The Quran is the unalterable word of God, in, evidently, God’s home language, so there is no wiggle room about interpreting it. If it’s in the book, it is true.” 

 “Islam is antithetical to Western Democracy. The idea of a Caliphate is essential to Islam. A Caliphate requires submission of religion, commerce, politics, and everything else in your life to a single ruler. There is no role for opposition. There is no role for an individual to say, “Hang on a minute, something isn’t quite right about this,” because such a statement is, by definition, heresy. And heresy is punishable by death by the people who get to define heresy.”

Since our leaders refuse to take off their rose color glasses and SEE the real threat that is facing the people of the world, it is time for the people to stand up and say enough!! Contact your representative, Democrat, Republican or Independent, and let them know we want and NEED immigration reform and border control NOW, before it is too late!

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

What Has Speaker John Boehner Done For Americans Lately?

 

boehner-and-obama-golfing

 

John Boehner has promised over and over not to fall into the status quo trap.  He has promised over and over not to give in to President Obama. He has promised over and over to fight Obama’s illegal amnesty. He has promised over and over to give the Congress over 72 hours to read bills. He has promised over and over to curtail the spending that is sending middle class Americans down the proverbial drain.  He has promised to fight President Obama. He has promised again and again and again. Speaker Boehner has made more false promises to Americans than Obama has lied to Americans. Is John Boehner a Republican or a Democrat? The line between the two seems to get smaller and smaller.

In the Washington Times, Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of Freedom Works was quoted,

“With a growing Republican majority in the House and a historically  high number of liberty-voting fiscal conservatives within it, there is an urgent need to replace Speaker Boehner with fresh, bold leadership that better represents the views of the whole caucus.”

“Speaker Boehner has kicked fiscal conservatives off committee positions for voting against his wishes, caved on numerous massive spending bills at the eleventh hour, and abused the legislative process to stomp out opposition by holding surprise votes and giving members little time to actually read the bills before they vote.”

“An effective Speaker would be someone who leads through action, consistently doing what Republicans promised the American people they would do. We need someone willing to shake up the status quo!”

It is time for change!  The Republicans swept the November elections because the American people were demanding change! They are sick to death of the status quo! They are sick of Obama’s pen and phone and want someone who will lead the charge to break that pen and cut off service to Obama’s phone!

In 2013, a total of 8 Republicans voted against Boehner’s continued speakership! Today, the number opposing Boehner is growing. it is time for all Republicans to vote “NO!”  The American people are demanding change, they are demanding payment for their votes! We are ready for a real leader to tow the conservative line.  Boehner is not it!  The voters are watching and keeping track of those who vote “YES” and those who vote “NO!” A vote for Boehner is a vote for the status quo!

The Republican party has been given a gift! The majority of the House and Senate.  It is time to do the job that was promised.  Stop the spending, stop illegal amnesty, secure our borders, pass the keystone pipeline, de-regulate small business, defund Obamacare and offer up something better, get the American people back to work, stop the growth of government overreach! Do your job and represent your constituents! Republicans finally have the opportunity to take the White House in 2016, but not if they refuse to do the job they were elected to do in November, 2014.  Give the American people a reason to show up to the polls! Surprise us and stand up and fight for this country. The United States of America!

The American people are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore. It is time to step up to the plate, vote Boehner out and get down to the work of getting America back to where it belongs…..the strongest economic force in the world, the most powerful country in the world, the country who stands as an example to all. A place where the American dream is accessible to all!

Contact your representative and tell them to “VOTE NO TO BOEHNER!”

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freshman_class_members_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Republicans and Democrats…A Choice Between Two Evils!

VoteBoth the Congress and the Senate passed a 2015 spending bill, in record time, that has been labeled a “Cromnibus.”  But where was the fight? Where were our representatives who swore they would not fund amnesty, Obamacare, taxpayer-funded abortion, and more irresponsible spending? No where to be seen!

About Obama’s illegal amnesty,

“We are going to fight the president tooth and nail if he continues down this path. This is the wrong way to govern. This is exactly what the American people said on Election Day they didn’t want.” – John Boehner

About the passage of Obamacare,

“And look at how this bill was written,”  “Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can’t.” – John Boehner

“When we came here, we each swore an oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution as representatives of the people.” “But the process here is broken. The institution is broken. And as a result, this bill is not what the American people need nor what our constituents want.” – John Boehner

These are the exact words John Boehner spoke as recently as November, 2014, in reply to President Obama’s announcement to offer amnesty to millions of  illegals inside the United States and the passage of Obamacare, both bills, openly rejected by the American people.

So how did the Republican leader decide to fight President Obama on amnesty, Obamacare, abortion and spending? By giving the Department of Health and Human Services’s unaccompanied children’s program an $80 million increase. He also offered up an additional $14 million to school districts stuggling with the influx of illegal students. Add insult to injury…he has also agreed to give an additional $260 million to the Central American countries from where the illegals are coming. Obamacare was, once again, fully funded, along with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of taxpayer-funded abortions, and the House signed off on increasing the amount wealthy donors can throw into the political arena, increasing the current cap of $32,400 to $777,600 per person per year.  Frank Dodd regulations have been rolled back allowing banks to participate in the same derivatives trading which exacerbated the financial crisis in 2008, and the real clincher? The bill calls for more spending then what the government anticipates bringing in, resulting in yet another year of increased debt, which has now surpassed the $18 trillion mark, representing a 70% increase in our national debt since Obama took office.

I think New York Post’s Kyle Smith hit the nail on the head when he said,

“2014 was the year when the truth was optional. 2014 was the year when convenient fabrication was the weapon of choice for celebrities, activists, big business and politicians.” 

In November of this year, we had a midterm election that trumped most others. The GOP swept the country by extending their majority to near historic levels, speaking loud and clear to President Obama, “enough is enough”!!! The American people said they did not like Obamacare and were not happy about our open borders and the surge of illegals allowed to enter into our country and take part in our taxpayer-funded services. The American people are no longer interested in bailing out anyone…especially the banks that caused the financial crisis in the first place, we do not want to pay for others abortions and we want the budget balanced, and for good measure, let’s throw in term limits. But is that what the American taxpayer got?

Even President Obama jumped on the bandwagon supporting the spending bill….what could this mean? Since when has the president ever agreed with the GOP? If he is signing off on this budget deal with no fight, then the American people are obviously the losers!

Lawmakers, led hand in hand by Boehner and Reid, signed off on a 1,603 page bill that Rollcall.com said,

“If members averaged 200 words per minute to read the dense legislative text, they would need 24 hours just to get through the bill.”

Joseph Curl from the Washington Times said,

“When House Speaker John Boehner campaigned for the leadership job years ago, he vowed to give members at least 72 hours to read any bill before a vote. Back in 2010 the speaker said he didn’t think ‘having 2000 page bills on the House floor serves anyone’s best interest – not the House, not for the members and certainly not for the American people.'”

I guess the massive 2,700 page, insurance canceling, $2.6 trillion budget draining,  Obamacare, “have to pass it to see what’s in it” bill, taught them no lessons. When will our representatives start studying history and learning from past mistakes? When will they stand up for the rule of law? When will they stand up and defend our Constitution? When will they say what they mean and do what they say?

If, in fact, the president’s actions on immigration are against the Constitution and the rule of law, then why would the GOP cave in on the budget negotiations and actually allow them to be funded? Even though the money only supports the illegal amnesty until February of 2015, doesn’t the vote itself validate the president’s illegal executive action?

Senator Ted Cruz took a stand on that issue and tried to fund the government for additional days allowing the House to reconvene on Monday to further discuss the bill.  Cruz lost the support of  most Republicans and Democrats, but he did get the vote on record for anyone wanting to know who supported the funding of Obama’s amnesty without a fight. It puts all politicians on record for supporting the bills that the American people do not support.

Even Democrat, Jim Moran said.

“Democrats got virtually everything they wanted in the bill. In twenty years of being on the appropriations committee, I haven’t seen a better compromise in terms of Democratic priorities.” 

When did lies become the new truth? When did misrepresenting, misinforming, misguiding, deceiving, defrauding, misdirecting and betraying the American people become the norm? I know absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it has definitely reached a new high. Add in the press, who refuses to truthfully inform the American people as to the real actions of our government, the real state of the economy and the job market, and we have the perfect storm brewing!

Once again, in words from Boehner  in 2010,

“Around this chamber, looking upon us are the lawgivers from Moses, to Gaius, to Blackstone, to Thomas Jefferson. By our actions today, we disgrace their values. We break the ties of history in this chamber. We break our trust with America.”

As Americans, it is hard to resolve the feelings of betrayal and even harder to come to terms with an election that all our politicians felt had nothing to do with them or their actions. It is hard to reconcile that our choices at the ballot box have come down to choosing between the best of two evils. When the depth of corruption, deceit and red tape bureaucracy reach such  astronomical levels, it is time for a complete overhaul! Fire them all!!

FYI……..

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 31 Democrats, 24 Republicans and 1 independent.

Voting no were 21 Democrats, 18 Republicans and 1 independent.

Democrats Yes

Baldwin, Wis.; Begich, Alaska; Bennet, Colo.; Cardin, Md.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Coons, Del.; Donnelly, Ind.; Durbin, Ill.; Hagan, N.C.; Heinrich, N.M.; Heitkamp, N.D.; Johnson, S.D.; Kaine, Va.; Landrieu, La.; Leahy, Vt.; Mikulski, Md.; Murphy, Conn.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Pryor, Ark.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.V.; Schatz, Hawaii; Schumer, N.Y.; Shaheen, N.H.; Stabenow, Mich.; Udall, Colo.; Udall, N.M.; Walsh, Mont.; Warner, Va.

Democrats No

Blumenthal, Conn.; Booker, N.J.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Franken, Minn.; Gillibrand, N.Y.; Harkin, Iowa; Hirono, Hawaii; Klobuchar, Minn.; Levin, Mich.; Manchin, W.V.; Markey, Mass.; McCaskill, Mo.; Menendez, N.J.; Merkley, Ore.; Reed, R.I.; Tester, Mont.; Warren, Mass.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Feinstein, Calif.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Enzi, Wyo.; Fischer, Neb.; Graham, S.C.; Hatch, Utah; Hoeven, N.D.; Isakson, Ga.; Johanns, Neb.; Kirk, Ill.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Thune, S.D.; Toomey, Pa.; Wicker, Miss.

Republicans No

Corker, Tenn.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Flake, Ariz.; Grassley, Iowa; Heller, Nev.; Johnson, Wis.; Lee, Utah; McCain, Ariz.; Moran, Kan.; Paul, Ky.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Rubio, Fla.; Scott, S.C.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Vitter, La.

Republicans Not Voting

Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Inhofe, Okla.

Independents Yes

King, Maine.

Independents No

Sanders, Vt.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/12/14/3872420/senate-roll-vote-on-11-trillion.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/12/14/3872420/senate-roll-vote-on-11-trillion.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/12/14/3872420/senate-roll-vote-on-11-trillion.html#storylink=cpy

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Trickle Down Hatred and Contempt”

COMIC white house _edited-1 copy copy

Trickle down hatred and contempt. Is it real? Is it being used to control us?  Where does the buck stop on this issue, or more importantly, where does it begin?

We have all heard of trickle down economics, but what about trickle down hatred and contempt?  Can a leader set the stage and simply, imply by their action or non action, that they will tolerate hatred and contempt of a specific group in order to further their own agenda? Can negative comments by a leader regarding specific groups of people influence how those people will be treated or seen by others? Should the president of the United States be  representing only the portion of the public that believes as he does? How do our leader’s comments and actions influence the level of tolerance or acceptance exhibited by the American people?

The International Journal of Leadership Studies released a study by Diane J. Chandler from the Regent University School of Divinity, United States titled, “The Perfect Storm of Leaders’ Unethical Behavior: A Conceptual Framework,

“We can and do condemn the actions of leaders who decide to lie, belittle followers, and enrich themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.”  Unethical leadership behavior is, therefore, defined  as the organizational process of leaders acting in a manner inconsistent with agreed upon standards of character, decency, and integrity, which blurs or violates clear, measurable and legal standards, fostering constituent distrust because of personal interest.”

“Unethical behavior and its persistence must have a catalyzing starting place, a tipping point moment that prompts all subsequent unethical behavior, similar to the vortex of a tornado drawing everything into its fury.”

“Unethical charismatic leaders select or produce obedient, dependent, and compliant followers. Consequently when leaders deviate from ethical norms, compliant followers tend not to critique leaders’ decisions, since leaders are considered to be the standard bearers for moral conduct. The downside of charisma concerns possible negative consequences, including abuse of personalized power, the nurture of blind loyalties, and the inhibition of any criticism.”

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, many of his speeches have resulted in great condescension towards Americans who disagree with his policies.  Obama has claimed that Americans who don’t agree with his administration on climate change are “a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future,” and “we don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.” In another speech,  “You go in to small towns in Pennsylvania and it’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to their guns and their religion.”  In another, “Ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent in the Republican party.”   Obama has made negative inferences regarding Fox News on more than one occasion, and a top official in his cabinet called Netanyahu a “Chickens**t.” In a ‘hot mic’ moment, Obama was caught calling tea party members, “dangerous extremists.” Is calling out those who disagree with his policies the proper behavior for the President of the United States? Are those who disagree, really a threat to society, racists, naysayers, flat-earthers, terrorists and extortionists?

When the president demonizes groups that disagree with him is he encouraging the mistreatment and exploitation of these groups? Do his comments influence and encourage the press and his public supporters to treat members of the tea party as extremists,  small town Americans as crazy and christians as religious fanatics? Is it right for the President of the United States to single out members of American society for disdain, ridicule or potential retaliation?

In June of 2013, according to a Rasmussen report, one in four voters who supported Obama reported believing that the tea party was the biggest terror threat to the United States. The most surprising aspect of this poll was that one in four believed that tea party members were not only the biggest threat to the United States, but a bigger threat than terrorists.

What about the race card?  Has the president and his team, used race as a tool to garner support for their policies, elicit votes or basically stir up opposition and in turn create more racial divide?

In October, in the Review and Outlook section of the Wall Street Journal, it was said,

“All this brings to mind a young presidential candidate named Barack Obama, who warned in 2008 that Republicans would play the race card. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” he told a rally. Mr. Obama won, and won again, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from rolling out that same racism charge at any opportunity, using it in particular as a tool to drive minority turnout in elections….But Democrats do themselves no credit and the country no good by playing up racial divisions for partisan ends. Alas, they’ll keep doing it until voters stop rewarding them with votes.”

Are there still racial issues currently in the United States? As long as there are people in the world, there will always be differing opinions and therefore discrimination against many races and religions.   However, in the United States, we have made giant steps towards resolving these issues since Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. In 2008, we elected a black president.  According to exit polls, President Obama did better with white voters than the past 2 democratic nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore. However, even with such great support from whites, Democrats still blame racism for the downward spiral of support for Obama.  Did every white person who voted for Obama suddenly turn racist? Or could it possibly be attributed to a failure in his policies and the continued stagnation of the economy and job creation among other heated issues?

In his recent speech to the UN, Obama compared the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson to the situation the world faces with ISIS. Does this place mis-founded ideas about racism over and above the threats by ISIS? Do his comments supporting Michael Brown over the police, prior to the completion of an investigation, cause distrust of our police by other communities, therefore encouraging unnecessary protests and dissension?

Does Obama’s silence on the slaughter of Christians around the world, represent a trickle down condemnation, and therefore, without words, send a message that Christians are no longer a group that we, as Americans, should support?

Ben Carson a pediatric neurosurgeon, and current candidate for the 2016 presidential election said,

“We need to understand that we are not each others’ enemies in this country. And it is only the political class that derives its power by creating friction. It is only the media that derives its importance by creating friction…that uses every little thing to create this chasm between people. This is not who we are……I think one of the keys to leadership is recognizing that everybody has gifts and talents. A good leader will learn how to harness those gifts toward the same goal.”

Martin Luther King said,

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

As Americans we must not allow our leaders to use polarization for their own political ends. We must work towards a common goal and find solutions to make the country stronger.  Having an open mind and listening to all sides is a true sign of maturity, broad mindedness and tolerance. If we can all learn to co-exist and attempt to understand the position of others, instead of demonizing those who think differently, the country will be able to heal itself.   If you preach tolerance, and expect other to be tolerant, then you must be tolerant yourself. If you preach divisiveness, then you must expect divisiveness from others, therefore prohibiting the very tolerance we all so desperately  want.
 We must recognize, that when we support leaders who use polarization to their own political ends, then it will, one day,  be our own beliefs that will be at the receiving end of the trickle down hatred and contempt.
Links: (http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol5iss1/IJLS_Vol5Is1_Chandler%20(2).pdf)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society
http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/08/09/obama-calls-democrat-position-common-sense-trashes-republican-view-wacky-nonsense-new-york-times-interview/

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

The American People Have Spoken!!

shutterstock_167167265

Election day has come and gone, and sanity has been restored to the country……I think!

The Republicans must hit the ground running in January and begin the process of voting on the 352 bills that have been gathering dust on Harry Reid’s desk all year. Although the president has been referring to the “do-nothing Congress,” it has been confirmed that there are 352 bills awaiting action by the Senate, led by Harry Reid. The Congress passed 352 bills; 98% passed with bipartisan support, 50% passed unanimously, 70% passed with two-thirds support of the House, and over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats. Is the do-nothing Senate the reason Republicans swept the elections?

Unfortunately the public must now sit through the never-ending speculation and analysis by the press while they evaluate and try to make sense of the Republican wave that swept through the country on November 4th. In the exit polls, CNN says only two in ten voters trust the government in Washington to do what’s right, half of voters expect life for the next generation of Americans to be worse, seven in ten voters say the nations’ economy is in bad shape and are concerned about the direction it is headed over the coming year, and more Americans say they voted to show opposition to Obama than support for him, and the country is equally disgusted with Democrats and Republicans.  From where I sit, it seems pretty elementary…. the American people are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore! It’s  time to get down to business! Release the chokehold on the economy, de-regulate small business, sign off on the keystone pipeline, secure our borders, enact sensible immigration reform, hold government officials accountable, get rid of Obamacare, quit polarizing the public and get the people off the dole and back to work. The paid vacation is over!

President Obama has been saying that he wants change, so lets finally see if he is telling the truth! When and if the House passes the keystone pipeline project, will Obama sign off? When and if the House secures the border and passes common sense immigration reform, will Obama sign off? When and if the House makes the necessary changes needed to get the country back on its feet, will we all finally see where President Obama really stands?

The next two years should set the stage, one way or another, for the 2016 presidential election. The next two years will determine whether a Democrat or a Republican will take the Executive branch.  Both parties need to understand that the American people are fed up and tired of seeing our hard-earned dollars wasted by a government that seems to care less about what we want or need. The party that stands up and takes action will be the party that gets the support of the American people in the next election, Republican, Democrat, Independent or Libertarian! We want action….no more political maneuvering, no more lies, no more self-serving agendas!! Just do the job you were elected to do, and remember the people are watching and our patience is gone!

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Votes? Inherent Value or a Political Means to an End?

vote-fraud

 

With midterm elections around the corner,  we have to ask ourselves if our voting system should be about the inherent value of our votes, or simply about winning elections?

Currently,  voter ID laws are the object of fights around the country in a game played out by politicians wanting to broaden their base and win elections.  Unfortunately, the only losers in this game are the American people.

When you are a citizen of the United States, born or naturalized, you are blessed with the opportunity and the right to cast your vote for a representative of your choice. Along with the vote comes great power and  responsibility. You, the individual voter, has the power to grant a politician, of your choice, the responsibility to govern our states and our country with integrity, based on the rule of law and our  constitution, framed by the morals and ethics which have guided this country for generations.

We MUST protect and preserve the integrity of our voting system.  If we allow the system to become corrupt, or to be manipulated then we will see our way of life fundamentally transformed and/or destroyed by the few who have become so powerful that they are willing to do anything, including ignoring and encouraging voter fraud, to hold onto that power.

Since the 2012 elections, there have been hundreds of people and/or groups charged, investigated and convicted of voter fraud. Many involving our government officials.  In a recent news story, it was reported that a Connecticut Democrat Representative, Christina Ayala was arrested on 19 charges of voter fraud. If we cannot trust our elected officials to maintain the integrity of our voting system, then who are we to trust?

Although Democrats continue to claim there is no such thing as voter fraud,  the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) found,

 “Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”

In looking at a small sample of voter fraud headlines, you may tend to disagree with Democrats’ claims,

  • A Shorewood man was charged with 143 counts of voter fraud.
  •  Three women were arrested and charged with 56 counts of voter fraud, in Houston.
  •  A California Senator gets jail time in Voter Fraud Case.
  •  Over 140 cases of Voter Registration Fraud found in Minneapolis.
  •  Over 80 Voter fraud cases sent to Iowa prosecutors.
  • Ex-magistrate in West Virginia 4th official to plead guilty to voter fraud
  •  Woman uses 5 absentee ballots in voter fraud case in Texas.
  •  Cincinnati poll worker sentenced to 5 years for voter fraud in 3 presidential elections.
  •  FEMA official charged in Florida voter fraud
  •  State Representative and Democratic Party worker sentenced to 18 months for 20 counts of voter fraud
  •  Former MA lawmaker convicted of Voter Fraud Scheme
  •  New York Assemblymen uses voter fraud for gaining power.
  •  Over 500 non-citizens removed from Colorado Voter rolls
  •  Voter fraud found in Vernon, CA election – could change winner
  •  10 NDSU football players plead guilty to voter fraud.
  •  Kentucky voter fraud allegedly funded by drug money
  •  State sweep finds 1,251 non citizens voted in Florida

We have also seen alleged cases of fraud involving the stuffing of ballot boxes, non officials allowed to  transport ballots, voters using absentee ballots of friends, neighbors and even dead family members to cast more than one vote, double registration within 2 or more states, and illegal immigrants registering and casting ballots in elections.

Recently, in North Carolina, when SBOE officials did a sample cross check of their database, they discovered 6% or 600 non-U.S. citizens were registered to vote.  Jay DeLancy, executive director of the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, said

“We want to know how such a large number of non-U.S. citizens were ever registered to vote in the first place. There is clearly a system failure here and we need the Board of Elections and the DMV to help the Legislature and the public understand where the problem lies.”

So, if voter fraud is alive and well, why would any reasonable person or official, elected to uphold the law of our land, fight against a process that ensures the very integrity of the voting booth? Why are our elected officials refusing to acknowledge and repair the issues at hand within our voting system?  Why would Democratic representatives across the country be fighting to give immigrants who entered our country illegally, the right to vote?

In 2012, election officials from more than 60 countries traveled to the United States to observe the presidential elections as part of a program run by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (IFES).  The majority of the officials agreed that the open voting system used in the United States, would never work, or be allowed in their countries. They felt the lack of IDs along with online and mail-in voting, allowed for too much fraud. They were also surprised that provisional ballots were even offered and shocked that local poll workers were allowed to “handle” the ballots.

The majority of countries around the world, take their election process extremely seriously. Most require IDs along with voter confirmation notices in order for a ballot to be cast.   Many countries mark voters with indelible ink to insure that each citizen casts only one vote. Why, would the most powerful, and once, the most influential nation in the world not take steps to ensure the integrity of our election process?

In a recent decision by the Supreme Court on voting restrictions in Texas, Justice Stevens noted that there was sufficient evidence of voter fraud,

“It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that examples have surfaced in recent years, demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

However, in the United States, although photo ID’s are required in order to complete the most menial of tasks on a daily basis, it is not required in all states in order to perform the most sacred action entrusted to every citizen of our nation; voting.

There have also been many reports of voting machine errors. Representative Jim Moynihan of Illinois,  said his vote was changed when he cast his ballot.

“While early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today, I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent. You can imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

In a similar situation, where a selection was changed three times by the voting machine, I contacted the State Board of Elections, who responded by saying,

“Apparently there was an issue in which one candidate was selected and the screen selected another. We regret that this happened. The sensors in the touch screens occasionally need to be calibrated so the area touched on the screen reflects the voter’s choice.”

If this is a situation that has occurred on other occasions, why are these machines not calibrated prior to election day? If these machines can, in any way, change, alter or switch a voters selection, without their knowledge, then why are they even used?

In testing the EDGE voting machines used in Virginia, researchers found “significant security weaknesses throughout the system.”The nature of these weaknesses raise serious questions as to whether the software can be relied upon to protect the integrity of elections, and lack reliable measures to detect or prevent tampering.” (https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/sequoia/avc-edge/)

If there is even the slightest chance that a vote can be altered, or that a non-citizen can cast a ballot, then  the public at large and our elected officials should  be working together to validate our voting system. You must ask  yourself the question,

“Why would one political faction be so determined to expose our voting system to fraud, by allowing anyone, citizen or not, ID or not, to participate in the selection of our elected officials? “

In this day and age of such political polarization, and a time when the media and our elected officials refuse to listen to the voice of the people,  we should all be concerned about the loss of the only voice that we have left, OUR VOTE!   When we lose our voice in the voting booth, the very foundation of our Nation will exist no more.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Lies; the New Truth?”

Unknown

Sandra Fluke. Who is she? Do you know what she stands for?  What do you know about her qualifications? What does she have to do with Hobby Lobby? Does she speak the truth or does she tell Lies; the new truth?

In March of 2012, Sandra Fluke was a student at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, and spoke before an unofficial hearing convened by Democrats. At the hearing, she criticized  Georgetown University because they would not pay for or cover her birth control, and she made the following statement,

 “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them — them, not me — to be heard.” I am an American woman who uses contraceptives!”

Enter Rush Limbaugh, who responds on his radio show by saying,

 “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

Because of Limbaugh’s comments, Sandra Fluke became an overnight sensation. She was suddenly the expert on contraceptives and women’s healthcare rights. Immediately she began touring colleges and universities around the United States talking to young girls and women about empowerment and how Republicans were purposefully taking away women’s access to healthcare and contraceptives.

She was then invited to speak at the Democratic  National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. After her speech, which wrongly accused Republicans of mentally, emotionally and physically abusing women, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote,

“Seriously, the party of Andrew Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman chose to showcase someone whose claim to fame is that she demands that somebody else pay for her birth control.”

Erick Erickson of CNN said,

“Of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats’ position is on this. It’s what he does and does quite well. And in the process he’s exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting? Her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves.”

Is contraception really unaffordable? Lets look at the cost.  As reported in US News, Money and Personal Finance, the cost runs between $15 and $50 per month depending on your insurance coverage. This amounts to $150 to $600 per year. The cost of condoms, which also prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, runs from 20 cents to $2.50 a piece. Depending on your personal taste in condoms, a max of about $150 per year.

Now, let’s look at the TRUTH behind the Hobby Lobby case that went before the Supreme Court and the FACTS surrounding their decision.

First, the actual complaint (reader’s digest version directly from the court documents):

 “The Green Family’s religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices.”

What does that really represent?  Below is a list of exactly what Hobby Lobby now and will continue to cover and offer all its employees:

  1.  Male condoms
  2. Female condoms
  3. Diaphragms with spermicide
  4. Sponges with spermicide
  5. Cervical caps with spermicide
  6. Spermicide alone
  7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
  8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
  9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
  10. Contraceptive patches
  11. Contraceptive rings
  12. Progestin injections
  13. Implantable rods
  14. Vasectomies
  15. Female sterilization surgeries
  16. Female sterilization implants

Below is a list of  exactly does Hobby Lobby does not want to  cover or offer all its employees based on their religious beliefs:

  1. Plan B (“The Morning After Pill
  2. ”Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
  3. Copper Intra-Uterine Device
  4. IUD with progestin

What is the difference between these two lists?

The first list is currently what Hobby Lobby offers to all its employers and is considered “contraception.” The items in this list PREVENT pregnancy.

The second list is what Hobby Lobby will not offer its employees based on their religious beliefs. The four items listed are all ABORTION INDUCING devices or medications. These are used AFTER pregnancy is achieved.

In conclusion, Hobby Lobby has no issues supplying its employees with coverage for the PREVENTION of pregnancy, i.e. contraception, nor does it interfere with a woman’s healthcare.

The Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby.

So now lets go back to Sandra Fluke, a woman who graduated from Georgetown University, with a degree in law, and a double major at Cornell University.  After the Supreme Court released its findings, Sandra Fluke interpreted their ruling and made the following statement,

“What this is really about at its base is trying to figure out as many ways as possible to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare.”

Did I miss something? Did Hobby Lobby refuse to pay for any contraception or healthcare for women? Did the Supreme Court decide that religious organizations did not have  to pay for ANY women’s healthcare or contraception? Why is she misrepresenting the findings? The only thing that is being limited in regards to women is abortion inducing drugs or procedures.

Did Sandra Fluke really learn the law at Georgetown or is she purposefully distorting the truth in order to tow the party line and support  the agenda of the Democratic party?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Party’s national chairwoman said,

 “This is going to turn the dial back. Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the long hand of business, reach into a woman’s body and make healthcare decisions for her.”

Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said,

“ Today’s Supreme Court decision unfortunately jeopardizes basic healthcare coverage and access to contraception for a countless number of women.”

Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid said,

“Our party must now fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage.”

Hillary Clinton chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that an employer can refuse to provide women with contraception on religious grounds.

CBS reported,

“The Supreme Court as pitted women’s rights against religious freedom. It upheld a challenge to a key provision of Obamacare—the one that requires coverage for birth control.”

Is that really what the ruling said?  Or has this just become another witch-hunt to distract voters from the real issues and to garner votes for the Democrats? Another “War on Women” campaign?

Is it just a coincidence that mainstream media along with Democrats are screaming from the rooftops that the Republicans have taken away the rights of women to receive healthcare and contraception?

As a taxpayer, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, why should our employers or we be responsible for picking up the tab for an abortion when a woman fails to protect herself during a sexual encounter? Is that really our responsibility? Is it okay to demand rights for yourself while stomping on the rights of others?

Have we seen a pattern established in this country under the current administration that has taken hold? A pattern where no one is held responsible or accountable for his or her own actions? Where the taxpayer is responsible for putting up their hard earned dollars to cover everyones bad decisions?  Have we seen our government and our media distort and misrepresent the truth in the name of politics? Is it okay to lie, cheat and steal in order to get the votes needed to win?

What happened to honor and truth and facts? Or have Lies become the new truth?

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather