Thoughts of a ‘Mad’ American


Over the course of the next few articles, I will feature a topic that makes me ‘mad.’ Not mad in the mentally imbalanced sense, but mad in the sense of frustrated anger.

Frustrated anger, the result of being old enough to see the big picture, which comes with age and experience, and fore-sighted enough to realize the end result of our societies current direction.

The Roman Empire disintegrated having gone down the same road which we as a nation are traveling.

I have no illusions of being a one man savior, or having all the answers, but I would like to offer some practical solutions to the problems we face as a nation.

Some may think my suggested solutions are neither practical nor possible, but I ask; is what we are doing currently working?

As a nation, we are heading down the wrong path, and I’m not the only one who sees it. The election of Donald Trump as president is proof-positive I’m not the only ‘mad’ American.

Mad, that our country is the way it is.

Mad that our government is guilty of gross incompetence, and we can’t seem to get rid of those in power, so the incompetence continues.

Mad that we are $20 trillion in debt.

Mad that laws of the land are not being enforced.

Mad that almost no one can afford health insurance while many receive health care that is paid for by those who can’t afford to pay more.

Mad that the news media has degenerated into a 24 hour a day outlet of lies and half-truths, which intentionally twists the facts into mind-numbing trash consumed by an audience who cannot seem to think for themselves.

Mad that this same audience has been ‘educated’ by the most expensive educational system in the world with the poorest results.

Mad there more people on government welfare than there are who actually pay Federal Income taxes, and many of these same adults have nothing to offer their children except the knowledge of how to get and stay on welfare.

My collection of topics will not be all inclusive, but they are topics which I have some ideas on how to change for the better. Practical solutions which would solve some immediate problems and hopefully change the long term outcome.

They will not be chosen in any order of importance, for the topics are all important. If you think I have left out topics you think are important, then I hope it will inspire you to put forth your ideas

If things continue the way they are America will become the next Venezuela, then our democracy will become a dictatorship if we are unable to rid ourselves of the buffoons who currently occupy the Congress.

The 2016 Presidential Election and the Electoral College

electoral-college I would like to thank an acquaintance of mine in California who was the inspiration for this article.

Historically after the winner of a presidential election was declared, the disappointment of the losing party quickly subsided. The election was over, time to accept the results, make the best of it, and move on.

This year was different. After Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton the intolerance of the left was exposed for all the world to see.

The same Liberals who preach tolerance, all lives matter, demanding the acceptance of all lifestyles and faiths, were lying in the streets crying, rioting, and refusing to accept the results.

But that discussion is for another topic.

After the election was over a long-time acquaintance of mine who lives on the left coast, questioned the legitimacy of the Electoral College on Facebook. His concerns about Donald Trump were undoubtedly shaped by what he had heard constantly by the 24 hr. a day news media which relentlessly attacked Donald Trump.

The media labeled Trump as a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a woman hater, and a dozen other derogatory things. None of which are true, but that also is for another topic.

Returning to the Electoral College comment; my first thought ‘was welcome to the club.’ Not because I think the Electoral College should be done away with, but because so much of my life has been affected by the Electoral College in the exact opposite manor.

First things first: my friend in California’s position is Hillary won the popular vote so the Electoral College results should be voided. That we are a democracy, therefore the person with the most votes wins.

But America is a Republic which operates on democratic principles. Big difference. One of the reasons the founders decided each state would have 2 Senators was to preserve equality of representation amongst the states in the enacting of laws which would affect the entire country.

Many would have you believe the Electoral College was created to keep an incompetent from becoming president, but that’s not exactly true. The Electoral College was created to prevent nationwide mob rule by one or a handful of states.

Now let’s look at election results (as of November 12th):

Nationwide popular vote:

Trump 60,072,551

Clinton 60,467,601

A difference of 395,050. A very slim margin of victory.

Now let’s look at 2 statewide results:


Trump 3,021,095

Clinton 5,589,936

A difference of 2,568,841

New York:

Trump 2,640,570

Clinton 4,143,874

A difference of 1,503,304

Now take out the results of either state, New York or California, and Trump wins the popular vote by more than a million. Take them both out and Trump wins the popular vote in a landslide.

My California friend, in anger only I’m sure, echoed the notion of succession from the union, and he wasn’t alone. Wow! Talk about the shoe being on the other foot. Sounds just like the south prior to the Civil war.

Why would they say that? Because they feel Trump is a threat to their way of life. Just like the southern states did prior to the civil war.

It has been taught (by Liberal teachers) for decades the civil war was all about slavery, but that’s not true. It is also taught everyone in the south either had slaves, or was in favor of slavery, but that’s not true either.

Were the evils of slavery a part of it, without question, but the main issue which provoked succession, was when the Northeastern part of the country, far more densely populated, and with a huge technological advantage, began dictating to the lesser populated southern states, how things would be.

Mob rule. A situation diametrically opposed by the Electoral College.

People in the south felt their states’ rights were being violated and their way of life under assault. It was unacceptable for a couple of Northern states to dictate to them how they should live and what rights they should have.

They felt their way of life threatened, so they succeed from the union.

Now fast forward to the last 50 years, and my previous comment ‘welcome to the club’ and how the Electoral College has failed the rest of us at times.

California and New York City are the centers of television, movie production, and news media headquarters. For the last 50 years or so, Liberals have determined what movies would be made, what television shows would be aired, and what and how news stories would be told, while the rest of the country just had to deal with it.

The Liberals took full advantage of this and attacked, belittled, undermined, and at times outright attacked the way of life of Americans in the other 45 states who disagreed with their views.

The news media was used as a weapon to distort the truth and coheres the population to further the Liberal agenda.  We didn’t have a media and entertainment Electoral College, as it were, for us in the other 45 states. Our opinion didn’t matter


News flash: most of the movies coming out of Hollywood are nothing short of trash. The View is a social cesspool, Seinfeld wasn’t that funny, not every show has to have a homosexual in it, and nobody in the south liked Honey Booboo; your polling data was wrong (just like in this year’s presidential race).

Thank heavens for NetFlix and others like it.

Oh, and New York City, you are neither the cultural beacon for the country or a shining example of the American dream. Get over yourself.

And speaking of polling data; it’s easy to get the poll results you want when you get to pick the participants. No one I know, myself included, has ever been asked to participate in any political poll. Polling data was and is fixed, whose truthful representation has become a tool the news-media uses to manipulate public opinion.

For too long, the two most heavily populated states have determined the political landscape of the entire country. Candidates knew if they could capture California, New York, and/or most of the Northeast their chance of winning was a given, the rest of the country got the big ole middle finger. 248836_340

The states who got the Liberal middle finger, populated by hard working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens (the backbone of this country), whose voices have been ignored since Reagan left office, finally had had enough and turned out to vote.

Two of the states the left always catered to, New York and California have an illegal immigrant population of 3,125,000. How many of those cast votes, illegally, the 2016 presidential election? Everyone that could I’m sure.

Illegal immigrants, who are being supported by taxpayers from 45 other states which had have no say in the matter! Where was our Electoral College in this?

We have a joke of a health-care system, passed by a political minority, which illegal immigrants are benefiting from at no cost to them, while middle-class insurance premiums have doubled or tripled since the ACA became law. No Electoral College intervention here.

Obama has run the country for the last 7 1/2 years on a $9 Trillion credit-card shoring up government pension plans and increasing welfare handouts, all while destroying middle-class America.

We are $20 Trillion in debt, the middle class is hanging on by a finger nail to what’s left of the American dream, Obama is importing refugees and settling them in states who have no say in the matter, expecting the middle-class taxpayer to not only accept it, but pay for it.

Here is a list of the states where Obama has illegally settled refugees and what is interesting is, Michigan and Pennsylvania, traditional Liberal strongholds, who have had refugees forced on them by Obama, came out and voted for Donald Trump.

We can’t afford to pay our own debts, much less everyone else’s. But again no Electoral College intervention here either.

Working class America, found in Donald Trump a man that recognized the legitimacy of their anger, and had the courage to tell the elitists in Washington we have had enough.

Trump told the media, the Liberal propaganda machine I don’t need you, I will go to the people and win without you,’ the media hated him for it, and attacked him 24/7.

Those who voted for Trump were tired of 2 or 3 states deciding everything for the entire country. For too long California, New York, and the elitists in Washington D.C have violated states’ rights, Constitutional rights, and sought to replace our lifestyle with a lifestyle of their choosing.

I freely admit all states have problems to deal with, but the difference is we in the other 45 states do not dictate to California or the Northeastern states how to live their lives or run their states.

Alabama, where I live, is not an ass-backward, hick state as portrayed by the media. It is a conservative state with hard working people who feel, as a black woman in front of my wife and I, at our voting place expressed so eloquently; “I just want to work, pay my taxes, and be left alone.” Absolutely right.

Our way of life (and I speak for most of the states in this country) is based on faith, family, and country. Our way of life has been under assault by Washington DC, and we are sick of it.

The 2nd amendment exists to secure the right to our way of life. According to Liberals like Obama, we are just “clingers to our bibles and our guns.” Damn right, just like the founders of this country.

We are tired of Liberals trying to replace faith with theoretical nonsense, replace family with government, and replace freedom with socialism. If that’s what you want in your state, in your city, in your lifestyle, fine. But you don’t get to decide that for the rest of us.

Hence the Electoral College. electoral-college

Here’s another news flash for you; the vast majority of gun violence is committed by Liberal welfare recipients, not bible-toting, gun-clinging rednecks in the south. The vast majority of the rioters in major cities are also Liberal welfare recipients or illegal immigrants.

Those same miscreants have declared war against law and order, murdering police officers, destroying private property, all while the Obama administration supports their actions.

This is what Trump supporters saw. This is why Trump won. This time the Electoral College, which has failed me and others so many times in the past, finally came through.

Do I want California to succeed from the Union, or course not? Sarcastically speaking – it would cost too much to build a wall around California, besides I get my wine from there.

While you may be upset with the Electoral College, I think it’s time those of you in California, New York City, and Washington DC realize we in the other 45 states have a say as well.

And our voice came through loud and clear this year.

We will no longer be dictated to by a minority of those who threaten our way of life.


Conservative Crybabies

A trait which has plagued the Conservative community for decades surfaced again when Ted Cruz ended his bid to be the Republican presidential nominee.

Conservatives are crybabies. It’s a terrible trait,and it’s a fact. crybaby2

My candidate didn’t win so I’m not voting. Reminiscent of adolescent behavior- ‘you’re not doing it my way so I’m not playing anymore.’

Donald Trump was not my first choice to be the Republican nominee for president, nor was he my second choice. But Trump is the duly elected Republican nominee for president, so he is getting my vote.

Ted Cruz’s stated Conservative values closely aligned with my own; limited government, immigration, faith, family, and country just to name a few. Cruz, as many conservatives realize, our country is rapidly sinking into a debt ridden, morally bankrupt society, far from what our founders intended. And that moral decay is accelerating.

But I’m a realist- Ted Cruz was not going to beat Hillary Clinton. That may hurt your feelings, but it doesn’t change the fact. All one needs to do is look at the voter turnout. Millions turned out to vote for Trump, tens of thousands turned out for Trump rallies, the same cannot be said for Cruz.

Just because your candidate didn’t win, doesn’t make Trump the enemy. The enemy is Liberalism embodied in Barrack Obama and now Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s defeat should be the objective of every Republican, every Conservative.

Is Trump a Conservative? Not by the standards most Conservatives identify, but Trump is our only chance to defeat Hillary. Our only chance to reign in an out of control government.

Proof of the cry-baby conservatives is evident everywhere. The Never-Trump movement and various other Super Pac’s created to defeat Donald Trump.  All of which give Hillary a better chance of victory.

A spokesman for the Never-Trump movement stated “we are not going to vote for or support Trump, but will focus on Congressional races to build a firewall to stop Hillary.”

This is a loser’s position. Let’s review how will this strategy has worked out thus far: while Obama and the Democrats first step in ‘transforming America’ was Obamacare. Not one single Republican voted for it.  It was against their ‘principles.’ So what, they did absolutely nothing to stop it.

Their excuse – “we don’t have any control in Congress – decrying if you give us control of the House of Representatives we can stop Obama and his Liberal agenda.”

In 2010 that happened. The Tea Party was born. Record numbers of Republicans turned out to vote. Now the Republicans controlled the House.

What happened? Nothing. Same result. They didn’t do a damn thing to stop Obama. The house controls the purse of the government- they could have defunded Obamacare – but didn’t. They were concerned about how the voters would ‘feel’ about their actions- forgetting the fact that is exactly what they were elected to do!

John Boehner and the rest of the gutless GOP representatives then said they couldn’t do anything, ‘but if they had control of the Senate then they could stop Obama.’


In 2012 that happened. Now the GOP held the majority in Both Houses of Congress. The question is what have they done to stop Obama? Not a damn thing. Obama continues to destroy America and the GOP has passed a budget to enable him to continue his mission.

You see the vanity of the strategy from the Never-Trump camp? Focusing on local and congressional races, the so called firewall construction, is a plan embraced by losers, and is the definition of insanity.

Hillary and Liberalism are the enemy.

Another stance among cry-baby Conservatives is not sacrificing their principles and vote for Trump. I get that, but consider this; conservatism is not a party it’s an ideology, and I intend to vote for the candidate who gives conservatives the best chance to preserve those principles, and it’s not Hillary Clinton. This is a two party race Republican and Democrat. No matter who I vote for or don’t vote for, I’m still a Conservative.

I’m still for limited government, I still believe we are a nation of laws, and those laws should be rigidly enforced, without exemption. Any appointed or elected official who fails to uphold and enforce those laws should be removed from office.

No matter who is elected, I will still be a conservative, and I will live my life accordingly. But to stop the Liberal agenda I will vote, and I will vote for Trump and against Hillary.

Let’s look back at history and see the result of non-voting conservative crybabies:

When Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson, conservatives decided Goldwater wasn’t conservative enough and stayed home, when in reality Goldwater was every bit as conservative as Ted Cruz. Johnson was easily elected, extended the war in Vietnam, costing 58,000 American lives, and wounded times 4, all so Johnson could build helicopters in Texas.

LBJ passed the largest single welfare plan in our history “The Great Society,” which has grown in size and cost over the last 50 years. And every politician who followed dared not be the bad guy and cut welfare, fearing voters would think he didn’t care about the poor.

LBJ allowed lawlessness to accelerate at home, there were riots in the streets, on college campuses, and the law went unenforced. Conditions created under LBJ were so bad he refused to seek re-election, realizing he couldn’t stop the destruction he had set in motion.

But LBJ and the Liberal party created a winning strategy which the GOP even today is too stupid to recognize. LBJ said when passing the great society legislation, “I will have those niggers voting democratic for the next 50 years.” And he was right. But prophetically, he wasn’t just talking about blacks, he was talking about every future welfare recipient.

Give them a check and we will keep their vote.

Fast forward to 2008. While Hillary was being trounced by a young black candidate Obama, what did the wise Republicans do, they nominated John McCain, a moderate do nothing whose talk was louder than his game.

Let’s face it if John McCain had not been a Vietnam POW he wouldn’t have even been a Senator. I don’t have anything personally against John McCain, but he is not even close to being a conservative.

Because republicans failed to account for demographics and conditions on the street, the race between Obama and McCain was a forgone conclusion.

Where were all those republican voters? Where were all of those conservative cry-babies? They were at home, and for the next 4 years would bitch about government while satisfying their own narcissism by claiming, ‘it’s not my fault, I didn’t vote for him.’ But it is your fault, you didn’t vote.

Continuing the failing ways of the republicans in 2012, with the White House ripe for the taking because of the disaster Obama created home and abroad, who did the party nominate? A milk-toast nice guy in Mitt Romney, who wouldn’t even fight back during the presidential debates even when Obama was lying and everyone knew it.

But Conservatives don’t fight for what’s right- they pout. When liberals punch you in the face, you punch back. Which is exactly what Trump does and Conservatives won’t do.

Trump is doing what Republicans have been afraid to do Since Regan – taking on the Liberal agenda. Warning of the dangers of big government.

The Liberal party doesn’t compromise. They might imply they do, but they don’t. They attack, and attack until they get their way, yet the Republicans are known as the Party of ‘no.’ Conservative cry-babies don’t fight, they cower, as if it’s some kind of noble action. Meanwhile Liberalism advances.

As a result of the missed opportunity in 2012 we have the most liberal Supreme Court ever, a gutless republican controlled congress, a train wreck of an economy, a foreign policy disaster of epic proportions and 20 trillion in debt. All taking place while conservative crybabies sit at home and bitch, thinking somehow if they focus on local and congressional elections things will get better.

How many times do you have to lose before you realize you are doing it wrong? The so-called conservatives who were elected in 2010 and 2012 have not accomplished one thing they were elected to do. Boy those ‘principles’ really paid off didn’t they? Or did you forget mr conservative John Boehner resigned a complete failure?

Never-Trumpers are de-facto Hillary supporters, so while you sit at home and refuse to vote for trump because of your ‘principles,’ you are supporting Hillary Clinton.

There won’t be a next time folks. If Hillary is elected, this is some of what will happen:

  1. The Democrats will control the white house for the next 12 years
  2. The Supreme Court will become solidly liberal, which means your conservative principles will be all but destroyed in any court of the land.
  3. The Republicans will lose control of one of the Congressional houses
  4. The National debt will continue to escalate.
  5. Government will grow so large, with so much of the population relying on them for support, the populace will have no choice except to continue to vote for anyone who promises not to cut their benefits.

Meaning your grandchildren will be slaves to the government.

All you conservative crybabies better vote for Trump. He is the only chance we have to stop this disaster. If you fail to vote for Trump, because he’s not your choice as the Republican nominee you are in fact voting for Hillary.

When you grandchildren are slaves to the government, be sure and tell them how your principles made it all possible.

Thoughts on Hillary’s e-mail Blunder

Working in IT for a living I am all-too-aware of how problematic security can be when it comes to email.

Corporations spend Millions on security to guard against intrusions, but this security has an Achilles heel, email.

Most corporate hacks are the result of compromised email addresses of employees who have high or admin access to sensitive material.

Even if the email hacks are successful on an employee who doesn’t have access to sensitive information, the hacker still has access to the email account itself.

With this access, the hacker can read, write, create, and delete emails in the account. The emails themselves may contain material that is secret or sensitive in content.

Those secretes may be personal, professional, or legal in nature, of they may contain trade secrets, information about upcoming events or even customer contact information.

So even though companies spend Millions annually to protect sensitive information, IT people know security is at the mercy of the individual user.iStock_000017775671XSmall

So when I heard that the secretary of state was running her own private email server outside of government supervision, outside of government run security protocols, I couldn’t believe it. What a careless thing to do.

Yes, many of us have private and corporate email addresses, I have a couple of each, but I use my business email address for business and private email for personal communication. I don’t mix the 2. Using my business email for personal matters is a no-no and most large companies forbid it.

The danger of mixing the two is there are invariably cross links. For example; say I use my business email to contact a friend on a personal matter, it could be anything, maybe an upcoming sporting event I’d like to watch, sharing a joke, or just plain B.S. If my friends email account gets hacked or already has been hacked, then the hacker has my business email address, exposing it to possible attacks.

Suppose my friends email account is hacked; I get an email from the same friend (except the hacker sends it unbeknownst to me), it contains a note or picture, and because I recognize the sender I open it. Unfortunately the email contains malware and now I’m compromised.

If on a small scale, knowing what a risk this represents, imagine the enormous risk posed by a Secretary of State whose is careless with her email account. It may never be known how much information is in the hands of the wrong people.

I further find it incredible that no one in the government put a stop to the practice after day one. It’s not like they didn’t know – or are completely brain dead. When you receive an email from someone the email address is evident. I.E. So you recognize Steve and the email account he is associated with.

You would think the alarm bells would go off when someone in the State Department or any government department received an email from!

Even if they didn’t pay attention to the senders address, any replies they sent would be obvious it was not a government server they were sending it to.

workamajig-security-failBut the use of the private email account was allowed to continue. Everyone who sent to or received from knew this was against the rules. It was a careless risk, with national security implications, and no one cared.

How could such a blunder be allowed at the highest levels of our government?

The defense presented by Hillary was so lame it was laughable.

“The emails weren’t flagged top secret when I received them.” What?

So your defense is because they didn’t have a red flag in the subject line that said top secret, it relieves you of any responsibility?

You mean you couldn’t determine from the content, who it was from, or both, the information was top secret? So you defend incompetence with ignorance? Really? That’s your defense? And you are Secretary of State?

If I send a letter to my attorney, it is de facto subject to attorney client privilege, so wouldn’t it be safe to assume if you as Secretary of State received an email from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or an Ambassador from another country that it would be at least secret, if not top secret? Of course you would.

You and I send and receive private emails all the time that contain content that is not for public consumption, and we have enough sense to use discretion on what we can share and with whom, the contents of the email. Evidently Hillary Clinton doesn’t possess even that basic of discretion.

Defending incompetence with ignorance is an unbelievable excuse. Especially when National Security issues, or the lives of men and women serving to protect us are potentially put at risk.

We are not talking about a teenager on their first job being careless with an email account we are talking about the Secretary of State, who was previously a Senator, and before that First Lady of the U.S.

The emails exposed were even more damning to their defense. One email set revealed Hillary Clinton told her daughter Chelsea the attack on the Benghazi consulate was a terrorist attack while she told the American people the attacks were due to a YouTube Video.

Incompetence defended by ignorance, defended by deception becomes laughable when you expect others to believe it.

“Ignorance of the law excuses no man.” Unless you’re Hillary Clinton.


What is H.R.2431 and why you should care



H.R. 2431 otherwise known as International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and was passed into law in Oct 9th 1998

The basis of the bill:

(1) The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.

(2) Freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal human right and fundamental freedom

(3) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. “

(7) Congress has recognized and denounced acts of religious persecution through the adoption of the following resolutions:

The bill declares it to be U.S. policy to:

(1) condemn violations of religious freedom, and to promote, and to assist other governments in the promotion of, the fundamental right to freedom of religion; and

(2) seek to channel U.S. security and development assistance to governments that are found not to be engaged in gross violations of the right to freedom of religion.

Freedom of Religion is one of the cornerstones of our founding principles and a right we recognize as inalienable.

As Americans, we believe, because it is inalienable, freedom of religion is not limited to our way of life, but is the inherent right of all peoples of all nations and of all faiths.

Because of our leadership role in the world, it is our obligation to make sure, whenever and wherever possible that peoples of all nations are given the opportunity to engage in this most basic of rights.

We cannot hope to dictate to other countries what religions or faiths they are to adhere to or even consider as the one-true-faith, but what we can realistically expect is for the leadership of those countries to allow their citizenry the right to choose which faith to follow and/or religion to practice, without fear of persecution.

Now the question arises; why is this law not being enforced, its conditions exercised, or even being discussed?

In light of the growing persecution of peoples of any faith but Islam in the Middle East, this bill should be included in all conversations involving U.S. Middle Eastern policy.

We have all witnessed the brutal slaughter of Christians at the hands of ISIS, but are christian-isis-persecutionyou also aware those countries our government considers allies do not allow the practice of any faith but Islam.

In most Middle Eastern countries any faith but Islam is against the law. Even our ‘closest ally’ Saudi Arabian law prohibits not only any faith but Islam, they don’t even allow foreign missionaries from any other faith in side their country.

H.R. 2431 provides for an Ambassador at Large and staff to keep Congress and the President apprised as to which countries are in violation of the conditions laid down in this bill.

Should countries be found in violation of Freedom of Religion and/or engage in religious persecution, the bill authorizes the President to take actions against such countries.

Here are 7 direct actions available to the President listed in the bill, with 8 others being indirect.

(1) public condemnation;

(2) delay or cancellation of scientific and cultural exchanges;

(3) withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S. development assistance and U.S. security assistance; (4) instruction of U.S. executive directors of international financial institutions to vote against loans primarily benefiting the foreign government responsible for such violations;

(5) restrictions on the issuance of licenses to export any goods or technology to such foreign government; (6) prohibition against the making, guaranteeing, or insuring of loans, or extension of credit by certain U.S. financial institutions to the violating government; and

(7) prohibition of U.S. Government procurement of goods or services from such government

When was the last time President Obama took any of the actions listed in this legislation to confront this violation of Religious Freedom?

When was the last time President Obama even took the very first action at his disposal (Public condemnation)?

Yes I’m aware President Obama has spoken out against the brutal acts of ISIS, but at the same time ignored violations on a country wide basis.

According to the latest annual report posted on the government website (as required by this legislation):

The following countries are Tier 1 or “countries of particular concern,” or CPCs. IRFA requires the U.S. government to designate as a CPC any country whose government engages in or tolerates particularly severe violations of religious freedom that are systematic, ongoing and egregious.”

Notice the Islamic countries listed in Tier 1 (countries of particular concern):



Saudi Arabia


Turkmenistan Is 89% Muslim


We are allowing religious oppression, bordering on genocide to some faiths, to continue while providing refuge for peoples of the same faith which is guilty of the persecution.

H.R. 2431 was signed into law by Bill Clinton, ironically a few months after the founding of The Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation’s first year received a shade over $3 million in donations (from whom we aren’t privileged to know), meanwhile Saudi Arabia conveniently got a pass from Bill Clinton even after terrorist attacks, killing hundreds of Americans, were planned and carried out by Usama Bin Laden a citizen of Saudi Arabia.

This miscalculation led to 9/11 where thousands of Americans were killed. All planned and carried out by Usama Bin Laden and 15 Saudi citizens.

While our government has more of less exonerated the Saudi Government of knowing and /or assisting in the attacks recently, it does not erase the guilt of Saudi Arabia as being guilty of violating the conditions of this legislation.

During the Bush years, before and after the Iraq war, the relationship with Saudi Arabia cooled, but was deemed necessary for success in Iraq by our government. Bush took advantage of a waiver clause in the bill (which I refer to as the Bush clause):


(3) the important national interest of the United States requires the exercise of such waiver authority

In 2009 enter Barak Obama and his questionable affection for all things Islamic. Obama has taken no action against Islamic countries in general or allies in particular that are guilty of grossly violating the conditions set forth in this bill.

A number of Tier 1 countries have donated money to the Clinton Foundation and those donations escalated during Hillary’s term as Secretary of State (2009-2013). Buying silence perhaps?

But those details are for another article.

This bill needs to return to the forefront of American conscience because of the current immigration, or-lack-thereof policy of Obama. Based on this legislation, we could and should, change our immigration/refugee focus to those people who are persecuted in Islamic countries, and base the priority of application on the severity of the persecution.

Which is not what is happening now. War torn Syria is the current administrations priority one; even while Christians are being be-headed and crucified on crosses.


The current administration is all-to-eager to provide ‘refugee statuses’ to people of the very same faith which is intolerant of every other faith except their own, and are guilty of violations listed in this bill. Christians are being murdered, jailed, beaten, and ostracized in Muslim countries, by Muslims.

There is political rhetoric today that we shouldn’t discriminate against any immigrants based on religion. I agree, to a point. The purpose of refugee status is to protect those who are victims of


FREEDOM.—The term ‘‘particularly severe violations of religious freedom’’ means systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom, including violations such as—

(A) torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

(B) prolonged detention without charges;

Less than 2% of those granted ‘refugee asylum’ this year are Christian, or of any other faith but. It seems to me there is selective discrimination being carried out by this administration.

It is widely reported Christians are systematically abused by Muslims occupying refugee camps, reducing their chances of ever escaping their fate, and overlooked by this administration.

And if they are lucky enough to make it to another country, they are still abused by Muslims in the refugee camps.

This could be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice ever committed by the United States. We have ignored the cries for help from peoples of other faiths, while embracing with open arms, those who are guilty of persecuting those who seek freedom of religion.

It is without excuse we have failed to act.

Obama loves to proclaim we are not a Christian Nation, but we are a nation of Christians, and this country was founded by those of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The very reason for coming to the new world was to exercise freedom of religion. Get over it Mr. President.

The rise of radical Islam has been on the rise since the Iranian revolution, and has accelerated in human rights abuses in the last 10 years. iran1Instead of taking a stand against this demonic barbarism our government considers Saudi Arabia an ally and we have all but handed nuclear weapons to the Iranians, all in direct violation of the terms of H.R. 2431.

May God forgive us if we fail to rescue those who are oppressed by Islamic countries because of their desire to freely worship, while importing the instruments of our own destruction.





Who Is Harriet Tubman and Why You Should Be Mad

Harriet-Tubman-248x300The Treasury Dept. announced yesterday there would be a new face on the $20 bill beginning in 2020. It was decided that honor would go to Harriet Tubman.

Tubman was an abolitionist who was credited for running the Underground Railroad during the civil war. But Tubman wasn’t chosen for historical work, she was chosen because she’s a woman and she is black.

Her underground railroad provided a vehicle of freedom for thousands of slaves during the Civil War era. A brave and noble woman to be sure, but worthy to be considered as a replacement for President Andrew Jackson on the new $20?

However worthy, this action by the Treasury Dept., at the behest of the Obama Administration, is just another example of a government out of control, doing whatever they damn well please, through sleight of hand, without consideration for the will of the citizenry.

Obama was determined to put the face of a black woman on U.S. currency, no matter what.

Originally it was proposed Alexander Hamilton’s image on the $10 bill be replaced with a woman’s. There was a pool of some 15 potential candidates, and a ballot was made available online so citizens could vote on the selection.

Then the field was quickly narrowed to 4.

The allocated time for people to vote online ran from March 1, 2015 to May 10th. Did you know about the vote? Very few did. It was made public, but made public to would more than likely vote for the pre-determined outcome.

It was announced some 600k people voted, yet I doubt there is any proof as to the actual outcome of the votes cast. No, likely it was already decided who the winner would be, and it was determined by 2 people. Treasury secretary Jack Lew, an Obama appointee, and Obama himself.

When the treasury was asked by the New York Times how the determination was made, the Treasury said that Lew was looking for a woman “who was a champion for our inclusive democracy.”

Whose inclusive democracy was he referring to?

Lew and Obama made the choice. Period.

Not only was the choice made, but the Administration decided to pull the ole’ switcheroo. And get a two-fer.

Lew & Obama decided to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 and not the $10. That was the switcheroo. The two-fer is they never planned to leave the $10 bill as is, they are going to replace the image on the back of the bill with another woman. The candidates are Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott.

And there is more, they are going to change the back of the $5 as well. The candidates for this change are Marian Anderson, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr.

BY the way, Marian Anderson’s claim to fame- she’s a black opera singer. An opera singer? Are you kidding me?

This whole process was nothing short of the Liberal, Racist, backdoor Progressive pandering we have come to expect from the Obama Administration. And I’m mad about it, and you should be too.

The Myth of Corporate Welfare

Corporate Welfare is a catch-phrase you are likely to hear tossed into discussions involving welfare in general. The catch phrase is used by the left to defend Social Welfare programs they support, as if social welfare was some kind of moral high-ground and corporate welfare was some kind of dastardly activity. There are numerous articles and graphs describing the evils of Corporate Welfare, but most are not totally factual. If you were to ask the average tax-paying citizen what Corporate Welfare was, their answer would most likely be a vague reference to overpaid CEO’s riding around in their corporate jets, receiving tax breaks they don’t deserve. You mean like Social Welfare, where the recipients receive something they didn’t earn?

What is corporate welfare?

Once you cut through the noise, corporate welfare, as it’s called, can be broken down into two categories: One, tax write-off’s (what you and I would refer to as deductions, or income exclusions), and two, subsidies.

When you do your personal tax return at the end of the year there are certain things that you can claim as deductions. Every deduction has a dollar value, and that dollar value is referred to as adjustments to income. In other words the dollar value of that adjustment is removed from your total taxable income. Children, or dependents are adjustments to income, as well as:

Health care costs, state and local income taxes, Interest paid on a home mortgage, cash contributions to charities and churches, even gambling losses, just to name a few.

Most Americans claim the standard deduction, which is an IRS pre-determined amount covering most of the deductions you would otherwise itemize (list individually). The standard deduction is $6300 for individuals. The amount of income which is taxable or non-taxable is based on the IRS tax code.

Corporations can claim similar deductions as adjustments to their taxable income. In the business world taxable income is referred to as profits. Now here is where Progressives take issue with tax code (legal deductions to deductions) and decry Corporate Welfare; they are unhappy with the deductions allowed in the corporate tax code. Some rightfully so. They like to highlight rare instances where corporate jets were claimed as deductions and so on.

On the flip-side: If a couple decides to have a child, that child is considered an exemption having a dollar value of $1050. So if you or I decide we don’t want to have a child we have to pay more income tax than those who do have a child. The exemption is quite a bit higher for low income families who can claim up to $3250, based solely on the fact they earn less money. Looking at this, it be fair to say if you have a middle class income and don’t have children you have to pay more in taxes than those who have a lower income and a house full of children. Is that fair?

The origin of the term “Corporate Welfare” is traceable to 1990-1995. For most of those years Democrats (Progressives) controlled the Senate and/or the Whitehouse. Which means they could have easily modified the tax code, limiting or eliminating those corporate deductions. But they didn’t. They cried foul, but were themselves guilty of supporting corporate deductions.

Kind ‘a like political double-speak wouldn’t you say? Crying about corporate welfare and refusing to do anything about it.

Now, on to another form of Corporate Welfare, subsidies.

What is a subsidy?

There are two definitions, so let’s consider both.

First; “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function.”

Where do subsidies come from? The government! Yet all of the Progressive banter would have you believe it is a creation of those evil corporations. Corporations take advantage of the tax code available – don’t you do the same on a personal level?

The point is; subsidies keep the price of a product or service low enough to be affordable to the general public. Who do products and services benefit? The public of course. You and I are consumers, rich or poor, no matter where our income comes from, we all buy products and employ services.

When did subsidies begin? The first U.S. subsidies were Farm Subsidies. They were offered briefly in the late 1800’s and were quickly withdrawn on a constitutional basis, but re-appeared and took permanent root in the 1930’s under a Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt. Since then government subsidies have only increased in number and cost.

We can argue about the worth of various subsidies all day long, but subsidies are subsidies no matter if they are corporate or individual.

Let’s consider this:

A gallon of milk today retails for $3.32 (national average). According to the govt. the production cost of a gallon of milk in 2015 was $3.21 and the retail value was $3.11.

If you wanted to buy raw milk at cost, you would need to provide your own jugs, drive to the nearest dairy, and find a dairy farmer willing to sell you a gallon of milk at cost ($3.21 a gallon). Would you be willing to do that? No, you would rather go to the local grocery store and pick up that gallon of milk for $3.32.

According to government information, in 2015 dairy farmers lost an average of .11 cents a gallon on what they produced. Just for the record dairy farmers lost about .57 cents a gallon in 2013. How long would you run a fairy farm if you lost money every year without someone making up the difference? Now add in pasteurization, packaging, transportation, storing, and retailing the true cost of that gallon of milk is now about $8.00 a gallon. Would you continue to buy the same amount of milk at $8.00 a gallon that you currently buy for $3.32? Probably not.

Let’s assume you are on a $50.00 a week food stamp allowance (social welfare), and the price of milk rose from $3.32 to $8.00 a gallon, will you continue to buy the same amount of milk? You couldn’t without cutting back on something else.

But you can still buy your gallon of milk for $3.32 a gallon because the government is subsidizing the dairy industry, or you personally – subsidies allow you to buy milk for $3.32 instead of $8.00. Corporate Welfare in action. So who benefits from this again?

Government welfare programs such as SNAP (food stamps) are managed under the same government agency as farm subsidies; the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Corporate and social welfare is managed by the same government agency. So the lines of social and corporate welfare become intertwined and at times indistinguishable.

We can dissect any industry and wind up at the same conclusion- corporate and social welfare working hand-in-hand.

The favorite evil industry target seems to be oil companies, which brings us to the second definition of subsidies; “a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.” Would you admit oil companies are advantageous to the public? Absolutely; virtually every technological advance made in the last 100 years is connected, in some way, to the oil industry.  Plastics, medicine, medical care, fertilizers, insecticides, cars, computers, cell phones and so on, none of which would exist with the oil industry.

You see, the oil industry is absolutely advantageous to the public, and absolutely necessary to our way of life

The Oil industry is a popular target because of the shear dollars involved, $multi-million companies garnering millions in subsidies.

Let’s use the same dissection we used in the gallon of milk to see the subsidies involved: The cost of production of a gallon of oil in Nov of 2015 in the United States was about .86 cents a gallon (at barrel price of $36) according to the government.  The yield of gasoline from a 42 gallon barrel of oil is 19 gallons, which means a gallon of gasoline cost $1.89 to produce.

The average retail price of gasoline in 2015 was $2.26 a gallon. So far we are at .37 cents a gallon above production cost before we add in transportation, storage, and retail cost of making gasoline available at the pump (which is about .16 cents per gallon). Now subtract the federal and state taxes (which average .47 cents a gallon), and we are selling gasoline for a $1.63 a gallon retail, which is selling gasoline at a loss of .26 cents a gallon. That loss is made up by government subsidies (or tax breaks, whichever you prefer).

While the oil industry enjoys large subsidies, it’s products are a huge source of tax revenue for the same government who issued subsidies for the production of the same product.

In 2013 gasoline sales generated over $30 Billion in tax revenue (which was supposed to fund infrastructure repairs).

Consider this: if the price of gasoline goes up, people purchase less, decreasing the federal revenue, and if the price goes down, people buy more and federal revenue goes up.

Once heralded as the green energy answer to fossil fuels, ethanol has turned out to be an over-priced flop; costing taxpayers twice as much as fossil fuels in tax-credits (subsidies), and because it is made from corn, which is subsidized as well, ethanol companies receive two subsidies.

The green energy crowd was gut-punched when it discovered ethanol damages the atmosphere more than fossil fuel do.  Not to mention, it is far less efficient than gasoline.

In the end, everyone screams about the profits made by oil companies, the years when things go right, but you never hear anything from the same crowd when those same companies break even or lose money in a given year. A gallon of gasoline is like a gallon of milk, the subsidies, or tax breaks issued by the government, benefit you and I the consumer as well as the oil companies.

Are corporations guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting the social welfare system in this country? Absolutely!

So who’s fault is it the tax code allows ridiculous corporate deductions? The corporations? Or the politicians? The truth is, politicians make mucho-dinaro from the tax codes as is.

Maybe we should focus on political welfare – you know the subsidies those politicians receive.

Originally corporate subsidies were intended to protect the public from extreme price fluctuation and shortages in basic food stuffs; i.e. milk being $1.00 one year and $10.00 the next, and there being no milk at all the next, much like social subsidies were intended to be a temporary helping hand for those in need, not a full time occupation.

There is little distinction between social and corporate welfare. Call it what you will; tax breaks, deductions, subsidies, earned income credit, or school lunch programs, it’s either all or none. One cannot exist without the other. Not without serious re-thinking and an adjustment period which would cause untold social upheaval for half a decade.

But, alas, maybe we should have heeded the warning of President Calvin Coolidge when he vetoed the McNary-Haugen bill, saying: “I do not believe, that upon serious consideration the farmers of America would tolerate the precedent of a body of men chosen solely by one industry who, acting in the name of the Government, shall arrange for contracts which determine prices, secure the buying and selling of commodities, the levying of taxes on that industry, and pay losses on foreign dumping of any surplus.”

His reason for doing so, and an unheeded prophetic warning: “There is no reason why other industries— copper, coal, lumber, textiles, and others—in every occasional difficulty should not receive the same treatment by the Government. Such action would establish bureaucracy on such a scale as to dominate not only the economic life but the moral, social, and political future of our people.”

Welfare is welfare; corporate or social. You cannot justify the one and defend the other since they come from the same government.

Obama’s Gun-Grab Sham


The latest Obama gun-grab effort entitled Now Is The Time is a disgrace. It is as phony as the tears shed by Obama when he announced the executive order.crying

It’s little more than a Progressive give-away disguised as “The President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence.” While the advertised purpose of this executive order is to protect civilians by deterring illegal gun sales and ownership, and does neither; it is a multi-Billion dollar (over $5 Billion) give away, and attempts circumventment of Congressional approval, by allowing laws to be written by administrative departments like DHS (Department of Health and Human Services), you know the food stamp folks.

It’s a sneak attack on privacy laws set up under HIPAA, by blurring the lines of what is legal and what is not.

In other words; gun purchase, sale, and ownership are no longer clearly defined by law, but are subject to the discretion of some undefined agency, or appointed agency head.

For example (from the facts sheet):

“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.”

What exactly qualifies as a gun dealer? Is it one sale, ten, or is it just sales in specific locations?

Reading further:

“Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.”

So it’s subjective? The identity of what constitutes a ‘gun dealer’ is determined by the government agent in charge at the time?

None of guns used in the recent mass-shootings were purchased from a gun show, yet this is a major focus of the Obama administration, and is nothing more than straining at a gnat while swallowing a $5 Billion camel.

This executive order adds 200 ATF agents and gives them an initial expense budget of $4 Million to crackdown on this non-existent gun show loophole.

The order continues the attack on the privacy of American citizens, which the Obama Administration has been doing since2009 (mascaraed as Internet Security), this time, by creating legal loop-holes in the HIPAA law.

Of these new rules were created by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the Congress.

One of these changes reads;

“Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.”

Which is current law. But what follows is a dangerous twist:

“or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

Determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority?

What defines a board? And who decides the definition of a ‘board’? Who decides who will sit on this board? And what constitutes a lawful authority? Who determines what a lawful authority is? Subjective and fluid regulations can be interpreted to mean a number of things depending on the person or agency doing the interpreting. Subjective interpretations are guided by a person’s personal beliefs as well as their political views.

These unexplained definitions create grey areas as wide as Loretta Lynch’s definition of a gun dealer. Is this what we want; the law meaning different things at different times?

The ACLU has had quite a bit to say regarding the administrations dangerous attack on HIPAA.

“Not  only  is  such  an  exemption  for  HIPAA  unnecessary,  because HIPAA does not pose a barrier to the transmission of relevant information to the  system,  the  creation  of  such  an  exemption  may  increase  the  risk  of inadvertent  disclosure  of  private  information,  including  medical  records, thus  subjecting  countless  individuals  to  a  loss  of privacy  and  certain  civil liberties.”

Of course the cure for all of this ‘new found’ mental illness is money. Spend more taxpayer funds for something that was supposed to have been taken care of under the great Affordable Care Act.

$100 million of the ACA budget was already earmarked for mental health, and because that $100 million is not getting the job done, the president proposes adding another $500 million to the ACA budget to address mental illness as part of gun control. What exactly does spending $600 million on mental health have to do with the 2nd amendment again?

Nothing, but it sounds good doesn’t it.

That brings me to the real reason for this executive order, the meat-and-potatoes of Obama’s ‘protecting our children and community’ dribble. Money.

Pumping more money into our failing education system (more government paid jobs): Let’s look at the list-

  • Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: $150 Million
  • Help schools develop and implement emergency plans: $30 Million
  • Help 8,000 schools create safer and more nurturing school climates: $50 Million
  • Provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers: $15 Million
  • Make sure students with signs of mental illness get referred to treatment: $40 Million
  • Support individuals ages 16 to 25 at high risk for mental illness: $25 Million
  • Help schools address pervasive violence: $25 Million
  • Train more than 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults: $50 Million

Grand total $385 Million (in an already gun-free zone).

Again, exactly how does putting all of these social workers in schools, at a cost of $385 Million, make any meaningful difference in reducing gun violence outside of the school building?

It doesn’t!

The $385 Million influx of money into the public school system is reminiscent of the President’s 2009 stimulus plan that pumped $145 Billion into public education (which largely went to bail out teacher retirement accounts).

The executive order does state part of the cost of this order will spend $4 Billion to “help keep 15,000 cops on the street in cities and towns across the country.”

Even this $4 Billion outlay is extremely non descriptive. It doesn’t say add 15,000 cops to an already overworked police force, it’s just “help keep.” Considering the presidents attack on police departments across the country I suspect this money is meant to impose federal control in local police departments by the lure of grants. If you want the money you have to allow the feds to regulate the way you conduct law enforcement.

Prove me wrong!

Then there are the usual, and pointless research grants (about $30 Million) to discover what we already know – the decline of faith and families has fostered a growing lawless society. But Progressive pin-heads would never admit faith and family is necessary for a civil society. They still think spending money and creating more rules will suddenly make criminals behave.

The normal attack on magazine capacity, armor piercing ammunition (where do you buy that anyway), and ‘assault rifles’. Yawn!

There is a $10 Million request for the CDC to conduct research “the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence.”

I have advocated for years the link between gun violence, in fact violence in general, is encouraged by video games. Many of the violent crime scenes we see greatly resemble scenes in the video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.

The Sandy Hook shooter; “Adam Lanza had notched up more than 83,000 ‘kills’ on his beloved video games including 22,000 ‘head shots’ as he trained himself for the horrific Sandy Hook massacre, it has emerged.”

As well of the rest of the recent mass-shooting perpetrators (except the incidents where the perpetrators were Islamic Radicals) according to this article:  Mass killers in US all found to be addicted to playing violent video games

I’m not sure $10 Million is needed to research this link (my research on this cost nothing).

One only need to allow local law enforcement to investigate if a gun-violence perpetrator has violent video games in his possession, and how much time the perpetrator spent playing those games.

In the end, this executive order is anything but “a plan to protect our children and our communities.” It’s all about the money.  Wasted money – padding the pockets of public employees at the expense of the taxpayer, while lying to those same taxpayers about the true intent of this executive order.

Shame on you Mr. President for exploiting the children so you can continue to fund lost causes.

The Progressives Continual Attack On The 2nd Amendment

Almost immediately following the San Bernardino tragedy, before the incident was fully investigated, President Obama, along with Hillary Clinton in her familiar robotic tone, began beating the drum for the need to enact more gun control legislation to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Pet phrases like “we can do better,” “something has to be done,” and “common sense approaches,” are synonyms for we want you to give up a little more of your freedom.

2nd Amendment restrictions have always been a top priority of Progressives, believing the government is more capable of running our lives than we are.

While insisting more gun-control legislation is what is needed to prevent such tragedies, preventing future tragedies is not their real intent, their real intent is restriction of our 2nd amendment right, and they shamelessly use any gun-related tragedy to further their objective.

Would restricting my 2nd amendment right have prevented the San Bernardino tragedy? How about yours? Or any other law-abiding gun owners? Emphatically no!

Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton’s hasty implication that stricter gun control laws would have somehow prevented the massacre, over the course of the days that followed San Bernardino, turned out to be entirely false.

Their proposed gun-control legislation would not have prevented San Bernardino, and they knew it when they said it, and they still know it. But this isn’t about San Bernardino, it’s about control. Government control.

We now know San Bernardino was terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic radicals Syed Rizwan Farook and his “wife” Tashfeen Malik.

The Progressives want you to look past the fact the attack was carried out in a gun-free zone, and Syed Rizwan Farook didn’t purchase the rifles used in the attack from a gun store, fearing he wouldn’t pass a background check. Nor would they want to admit because of Farook’s avoided retail gun stores, or gun shows, the current gun laws did their job.

San Bernardino revealed a weakness in legislative policy, but it wasn’t a weakness in gun control, it was a weakness in immigration policy.

The White House’s rhetoric how refugees from the Middle East are “thoroughly and “rigorously vetted rang woefully empty in light of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

Farook went to Saudi Arabia and returned with his new wife Tashfeen Malik, passing all of the touted thorough and rigorous government vetting processes.

Had those vetting processes simply included looking at Tashfeen Malik’s Facebook page maybe someone at the DHS would have known she was a terrorist, and 14 people would still be alive.

Sadly, the Obama administration has forbade DHS from looking at anyone’s Facebook page as part of the immigrant visa screening process. So much for Progressive ‘common sense.’

The Legislation proposed is the same bill proposed in 2013 (which didn’t pass then either) but with a couple of additions.

The new gun-control legislation proposed by the Obama administration, candidate Hillary Clinton, and sponsored in the Senate by Chuck Schumer, is a Trojan horse.

While the bill’s supporters say tying gun background checks to the government no-fly list is a ‘common sense’ forward step, it’s really a slight of hand.

Tying our 2nd amendment right to a no-fly list would jeopardize that right.

How so?

The 2nd amendment, like the 1st, is a fundamental right, a right guaranteed by the Constitution, meaning it cannot be taken away by the Federal government except as the result of conviction of a felony in a court of law by a jury of your peers.

Restrictions can be placed on your right to purchase a gun, but those restrictions are enforced at the state level, not at the federal level. They also can be directly appealed in court.

The proposed legislation by Obama, Hillary, and Schumer, would diminish your 2nd amendment right by changing it from a fundamental right to an entitlement right (a right determined by the government, or a government bureaucrat).

On a side note, ole Chuck Schumer hasn’t mentioned the 100 Million dollar budget that goes along with this legislation, has he?

For example;

You go to a sporting goods store to purchase a firearm. You fill out the paperwork, and suddenly you’re denied because your name is on the government no-fly list. You want to know why your name is on the no-fly list, so where do you start?

You’re a law-abiding citizen, haven’t been convicted of anything, you may not even ever had a traffic ticket, so there must be some sort of mistake.

You begin your inquiry by contacting local law enforcement, upon which you’re informed your denial comes from the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

What then?

Lucky for you the government has established a department and a website where you can challenge your placement on the no-fly list; the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP for short).

Your appeal starts by filling out a form, once you realize there is no 1 800 number to call and quickly get this resolved. In the mean-time your 2nd amendment right has been suspended.

There is an excellent article on the ACLU’s website detailing the bureaucratic nightmare involved in challenging your placement on the no-fly list, warning;

“Because there is no other alternative available at this time, we generally advise people to follow the process in the hope that the government will change it’s mind.”

So how could your name wind up on the no-fly list to start with?

This article mentions 7 ways, siting just 3:

  1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.
  2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”
  3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

Potentially innocent actions, if considered as threatening by someone at the Department of Homeland Security, could decide your name should be added to the list.

At his point a government agent has suspended your 2nd amendment right; without a trial, and making a subjective decision based on reasonable suspicion. Who determines what qualifies as reasonable suspicion?

If you ever wind up on a no-fly list, even in error, in all likelihood you would never be able to find out who decided to add you to the list.

Even if you challenge the reason or reasons you are on the no-fly list, and are fortunate enough to talk to an official, it’s likely that official will only have a summary of reasons why you are on the list:

“You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the list.”

They also don’t have to tell you why your name is on the list.

“the U.S. government’s privilege against disclosing classified information that could harm national security. This makes it difficult for those prosecuting these claims to investigate the reason behind their inclusion on the List or to challenge the List on constitutional grounds because they cannot easily show a pattern of improper behavior.”

An unnamed government agent, operating under privilege, has determined you guilty, based on suspicion or error, without a trial by jury of your peers, has revoked your 2nd amendment right.

In other words; whomever at DHS, or at one of its agencies, decides your name should be on the list, can add it without any accountability to you or the public at large.

What is to prevent a government official from deciding who is added to the no-fly list based on their personal prejudices?

Without accountability they could add your name to the no-fly list for any number of reasons: maybe because you are a Conservative, a Liberal, a Christian, white, or maybe they just don’t like your friends or Facebook page. Any of these reasons, or dozens of others, could be used to suspend your 2nd amendment right indefinitely.

The inherit dangers of this kind of government rule-making, without accountability, has already happened, and more than once.

Remember Lois Lerner, the IRS official who was removed from office because she was caught intentionally obstructing tax free applications for Republican organizations during the 2012 presidential campaign?

She was removed from office with full pay and benefits. I guess that’s the government’s definition of being held accountable. Wouldn’t it be great if we in the private sector could be fired yet keep our pay and benefits?

The founders were very shrewd in the verbiage used in the 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is no constitutionally justifiable reason the 2nd amendment should be altered, or infringed upon, based on a list compiled by any government agent or body who is not accountable to the public. Doing so could be considered a violation of another constitutional right, the 6th amendment.

The ACLU is currently challenging the government’s no-fly list in court.

“Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms.”

Tying our 2nd amendment right to the no-fly list is truly a Trojan horse. This is purely an assault on our 2nd amendment right by the government. President Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton, democratic candidate for President, are leading the assault.

We must not allow ourselves to be conned into giving up our 2nd amendment right by slick-talking Progressives whose only interest is exerting more government control over our lives.

Be assured if they can control the 2nd, we will soon after lose the 1st for our freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the 2nd.


North Carolina Under Assault

A friend of mine in North Carolina sent this article to me, and with apologies to her I’m just now getting around to it.


The title of the article Why North Carolina is the new Selma, is a ridiculous and unjust comparative statement. If accuracy mattered at all the writer, which it doesn’t, it should have read Progressives try to compare their march on Raleigh to Selma.

The article written by Penda Hair, co-founder of the Progressive org Advancement Project, who still has strong (financial) ties to the NAACP. So one could rightly suggest the article is slightly, or radically biased, to the left.

But I will give the devil her due, for you could argue my articles are biased slightly to the right. And rightfully so.

The article is full of misplaced adjectives, exaggerations, and flat out lies.

“Today, voting rights are being targeted with more subversive mechanisms.” What rights are we talking about here?

Using her list from the article:

  1. cuts to early voting
  2. the elimination of same-day registration
  3. a ban on out-of-precinct provisional ballots
  4. the end of a successful pre-registration program for 16- and 17-year-olds
  5. strict photo ID requirements

Let’s use a little common sense and examine her claims:

  1. The law in NC is early voting begins 12 days prior to Election Day. 12 Days. You have 12 days to exercise your right to vote.
  2. And 3. Were stayed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling so we will not hit those too hard other than to say the change in voting laws in this bill are more than fair and are far more liberal than those set down by the founders of the U.S.

And the North Carolina law created ample opportunity for legal voters to cast their ballots as seen in the following:

“If you moved to a different precinct in your county less than 30 days before the election, you can vote at your old precinct’s polling place on Election Day. If it has been more than 30 days, you can either (1) go to your old precinct, ask for a “transfer,” take it to your new precinct’s polling place and vote, or (2) go to your new polling place and ask for a Provisional Ballot if your name is not on the voter roll.

The most convenient and reliable way to vote if you have moved within you county but have not updated your registration is to vote at an Early Voting site during Early Voting.”

After the liberal court ruling, the NAACP and the Advancement Project made this victory statement:

“The evidence is clear that the elimination of same-day registration, and the prohibition of counting out-of-precinct ballots, make it disproportionately harder for African Americans in North Carolina to vote,” said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

So was this about voting rights or just race? So if you’re black you move more often, or tend to register and vote on the same day more than if you were white? Lame at best.

If I was black, I would be offended by the implication that as a black man (or woman) I was different than my white counterpart, somehow less than, so special rules had to be created to accommodate me?

Maybe I should allow myself to be a pawn in an effort to further the Progressive expansion of the government plantation where I am told for whom I should vote. Where I have sold my vote for a government handout.

  1. Why should the state (the taxpayers) feel any obligation to pre-register minors to vote? The excuse of voters being ‘more likely to participate in future elections’ is not good enough. Once you turn 18 years of age, and want exercise your right to vote, then you must exercise the initiative to go register and vote. Having a right is the same as having a responsibility. You must exercise responsibility to exercise your rights.

The Progressives would rather you allow them to vote on your behalf much like a proxy vote in a stockholders meeting. They don’t care about you, just your vote.

  1. There is no legitimate excuse not to have a photo ID when you vote. Period. Adequate provisions are in place for those who “cannot” obtain one because of medical problems. All of the excuses I’ve read are just that, excuses.



Why was it necessary to include “Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians – Black, White, Latino, Asian and Native American; Democrat, Republican and independent; people of faith and nonbelievers; gay and straight; students, parents and retirees?”

To further the lie. Why not just say “Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.”

But then you couldn’t highlight the NAACP could you? You couldn’t draw attention to the groups who took part in this circus.

Then there’s Moral Monday. How does that equate to voting rights? Well I’m sure some Progressive Academic could contrive a convincing thesis, but there is no direct link. Somehow though Progressives step over morality to defend the rights of immoral people.

However, miss-representing the truth and outright lying, as the writer of this article has done, is a moral issue.

And just for the record these Moral Monday marches used to be called The Jones St Rally, then the The hkonj rally (Sponsored by NC Now National Organization of Women). In fact this was the 7th in a row, The voter rights folks just decided to jump on the bandwagon.

And their stated purpose for this voting rights march on Raleigh?

“This is a great event that brings progressive voices from across the state to the capital to demand economic justice and an end to poverty.”

So all these protesters were protesting what exactly? It the typical Progressive shotgun. Protest about anything and everything and call it whatever suits your cause.

We see this has little to do with voting, and certainly nothing to do with morals.

Next exaggeration (lie) “In 2014, an estimated 80,000 people flocked to Raleigh to march against the state’s attacks on justice and democracy.”

80,000? Hardly. According to this article  the number came in around 20,000. 20,000 is still a good crowd, but it ain’t 80,000.

Now, let’s look at a summary of demands from the various groups who participated in the event. Brought to you by Bluenc

  •  Secure pro-labor, anti-poverty policies that insure economic sustainability;
  •  Provide well-funded, quality public education for all;
  •  Stand up for the health of every North Carolinian by promoting health care access and environmental justice across all the state’s communities;
  •  Address the continuing inequalities in the criminal justice system and ensure equality under the law for every person, regardless of race, class, creed, documentation or sexual preference;
  •  Protect and expand voting rights for people of color, women, immigrants, the elderly and students to safeguard fair democratic representation.

Like I said earlier, this Moral Monday rally is an illustration of the Progressive shotgun. A crudely put description of the Progressive shotgun; blow crap against the wall and see what sticks.

From our examination of this article we see this rally had no real comparison to Selma. Those who marched in Selma were not marching for any of the demands listed by these groups. And to equate the efforts of rabid Progressives in NC to those who marched in Selma is a disgrace to all of those who suffered injustice in Selma.

Penda D. Hair you should be ashamed. Your article is full of lies and half-truths. It is an opinion piece and deceptive at best.

Thankfully these groups are in still the minority, even though you would be led to believe by the Progressive Media they are the majority.

Don’t be deceived; Progressive demands are NOT moral issues, they are political ideals.

North Carolina is truly under assault by Progressive radicals, the NAACP, homosexual groups, Van Jones, and other political deviants. Progressives realize North Carolina is a swing state. Once solid blue, North Carolina is returning to Conservative roots and principles.

I can only pray the Conservative Majority in NC will not allow these groups to trash their great state.