Do We Have Another Woodward?

Bob Woodward SC Do We Have Another Woodward?

The House of Cards is beginning to crumble. All of a sudden, Uncle Joe is back in the closet. Valerie Jarrett is nowhere to be seen. To the task at hand:

CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson bucked the trend and was the only mainstream media reporter who dared to investigate Benghazi-gate, and now it is being reported that she may lose her job over it. And the fact that the president of CBS News is the brother of a top Obama Administration official is allegedly not helping matters.

The Daily Caller is reporting: “The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.” I wonder how a reporter covers a story “too aggressively.” I think if they had asked Bob Woodward if he was being too aggressive with Watergate, I think they would have gotten a different answer.

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months. “We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But last Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported; and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. There is speculation that the Obama administration is keeping the survivors away so that they can’t do damage. The White House advisors never expected Benghazi to develop legs. Recent developments, especially the emails that were released the other day, show that there are concrete links from the State Department to the White House concerning the wording in the revisions.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters degree in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012. That is three days after the airing of the event. “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Mr. Rhodes, also a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria as well. But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda. According to Rhodes: “My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,”

David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.

So the plot thickens. Day by day, the Obama administration is sinking into the mud and mire that it created after the attack on Benghazi. One question we need answered is: Who decided on sending Susan Rice out to mislead the public the way she did? That was such a glaring breach of protocol that even an eighth grader would have questioned the choice. As far as the display that Hillary put on, I for one care very much why our Ambassador was tortured and murdered (and why three brave men who came to his defense were deserted by our government and sentenced to an ignominious death.)

It doesn’t matter whether you are Democratic, Republican, or Independent. If you care about America and the future of freedom, you have to demand that there is a complete revelation of the truth. There is something on display in the Truman Library that every American should take note of. Harry Truman was a man of his word who did not look for someone or something to blame for his shortcomings. The sign on his desk was simple and straightforward. It read: “The Buck Stops Here.” That simple statement should be applied to President Obama and the Nanny Media that did everything it could to get him elected and prevent anything or anyone from exposing his incompetence or dishonesty. Now I am sure they will circle the wagons around Hillary and her preparation for a presidential run in 2016.

Gosnell’s Women’s Clinic Promised Death

Kermit Gosnell 25 223x300 Gosnells Womens Clinic Promised Death

“The bigger the baby, the more he charged.” That was abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s pricing plan. So when one woman came to him about seven or eight months pregnant, Gosnell charged her $2,500, according to the grand jury report.

“Sue,” as the grand jury report calls the mother, came to Gosnell’s gory abortion clinic at 9 in the morning. Gosnell’s staff induced labor. At 11 p.m., Sue finally gave birth to her son. Gosnell’s assistant Kareema Cross testified that the boy was 18 or 19 inches long, “nearly the size of her own 6 pound, 6 ounce, newborn daughter.” Then Kermit Gosnell allegedly did what he always does after he delivers a baby: He murdered it. “The doctor just slit the neck,” Cross testified. Snipping the back of newborns’ necks was allegedly how Gosnell aborted babies after delivering them.

But with “Sue’s” son — Baby Boy A, as the grand jury report called him — Gosnell apparently failed. The baby kept twitching in the little plastic box where Gosnell had discarded him, according to testimony. Gosnell allegedly tried to falsely dismiss this as “reflexes.”

“Sue” went home shortly after delivering her son. For days, she was in pain and vomiting. When she finally went to a hospital, she was admitted with infections and blood clots. Gosnell is on trial for murdering Baby Boy A and six other babies, as well as causing the death of one mother. During the trial it was revealed that Gosnell’s clinic had not been inspected by the State in more than 10 years. No wonder he didn’t worry about the conditions he operated under. If the authorities didn’t care, why should he.

Until late last week, almost nobody outside of Philadelphia or the pro-life activist community had heard of Gosnell or his trial, which began more than a month ago. The New York Times had one story at the start of the trial in March, and then nothing. Fox News has been reporting on the trial since it began. According to the Fox reporter the Press area was conspicuously absent of any other members of the press. Despite the obvious lack of interest of the liberal media, Fox and other Conservative outlets have kept it front and center. So while the rest of the media was featuring Jodi Arias and her travails, Fox combined the coverage of the two for a more well balanced approach.

Conservative media critic Mollie Hemingway of the blog GetReligion spent a good part of last week asking reporters who normally cover such issues why they were ignoring this trial. Washington Post writer Sarah Kliff, who covers abortion extensively, responded that she didn’t cover “local crime.” Many conservatives noted that the Newtown, Conn., school massacre and the killing of Trayvon Martin could be described as “local crime,” yet they warranted national media attention. Why not an alleged serial-killing abortionist? When you look at things objectively everything is local. It becomes national when the media decides that it should be covered that way.

It’s a good question, especially because the policy debate Gosnell stirs up could give ammunition to either side. Abortion defender Katha Pollitt, for instance, wrote after Gosnell’s arrest last year, “What fueled Gosnell’s business were the very restrictions the legislature was so keen on passing. …” it’s all in the interpretation of the reporter covering the story. Much of the reporting of the liberal media follows the path of their ideology. Reporters are supposed to be objective in reporting a story, but being human everyone is swayed by what they or their bosses believe. If the facts don’t bear you out then you have to bend it to make it fit.

On the other side, Gosnell’s crimes are also relevant to President Obama’s abortion record. As a state senator, Obama repeatedly voted against legislation requiring hospitals to care for babies born during abortions. Such laws might somehow be used in the future to infringe on abortion’s legality, Obama argued. Obama went so far to say that if a baby was born alive it should be left on the table until it succumbed to the effects of the procedure. He asserted that medical personnel should not attempt to revive the baby and defeat the purpose of the abortion.

As Baby Boy A lay in that plastic shoebox, he didn’t look any different than a sleeping newborn. In the picture one of Gosnell’s aides took, you see his hair, his pinkish skin tone. That was the boy that Gosnell is now accused of murdering. And that’s also what babies look like when one of Gosnell’s law-abiding colleagues, such as late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart, who practices in Germantown, Md., snips their spines with scissors. Except for the disgusting conditions that existed in Gosnell’s clinic, either one could satisfy Obama’s idea of what should be the outcome of the abortion. Gosnell’s method for aborting babies wasn’t substantially different from a procedure Obama enthusiastically defends.

In his first U.S. Senate race, Obama used Carhart’s procedure as a fundraising pitch. In a 2004 campaign mailing, Michelle Obama tried to rally the donor base by explaining how Republicans were trying to ban partial-birth abortion, “a legitimate medical procedure,” as Michelle put it. Now how does that sound from a mother’s point of view. With a mother like that in the house you have to watch where you lay your head.

The most substantive difference between the partial-birth abortions which Obama used for his fundraising and Gosnell’s abortions is: Dr. Gosnell did the snipping outside of the mother’s birth canal, while Dr. Carhart reaches his scissors inside the woman’s vagina to snip the baby’s spine. Talk about navigating the channel. One wrong turn and the mother would be compromised. Technically, Carhart’s was a late term abortion because it was snipped inside the birth canal as opposed to Gosnell’s which occurred after the baby left the canal. This fact points us to the most likely reason the mainstream media ignored the story as long as possible: The Gosnell story has an inherent pro-life bias, because it leads us to discuss the intricacies of abortion procedures.

When you discuss the act of aborting — even perfectly legal abortions — you have to discuss the blood, the scalpels, and the scissors. You might use terms like “dilation and extraction” or “dilation and curettage.” Think through those terms (“curettage” is defined as “a surgical scraping or cleaning”) and recall that what is being extracted or scraped has a beating heart. Now take it one step further and you have a standard Gosnell procedure. Even if the baby beat the odds, he/she didn’t stand a chance in Gosnell’s hands. Even his assistants had trouble carrying out some of the procedures he dictated.

Discussing Gosnell and his techniques threatens to start a discussion on abortion procedures — and that’s not good for anyone in the abortion industry. So you can see why no upstanding liberal abortion proponent would want to do that.

They Just Don’t Get It…

SheilaJackson They Just Dont Get It...

How can a person like Sheila Jackson Lee be elected to office? A couples of weeks ago, Representative Lee spoke on the House floor in favor of more restrictions to prohibit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families from criminals. She had the nerve to blame the murdering of innocents at the hands of gangs on the guns instead of the despicable people holding the gun. This is what she said:

Don’t condemn the gang bangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked — that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws. Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation. I’m going to agree with my friends on the other side of the isle. Our Republican friends, let’s enforce the gun laws that we have – – who would run away from that. That’s a sensible proposition. Put a resolution on the floor of the House – – let’s enforce gun laws that we have.

Does anything that she said make any sense to you? She contradicts herself halfway through and then joins with her “friends across the aisle”. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Chicago and New Orleans have the highest murder rates. The reason Chicago does (according to Ms. Lee) is that it doesn’t have enough strict gun control and that neighboring states don’t impose the same restrictions that Illinois does. It’s not their fault. It’s that we don’t have universal gun control. If we didn’t have any guns at all, these criminals wouldn’t be able to kill each other…

“So, don’t blame the criminals”. So according to Ms. Lee, the poor gangbangers just need more rehabilitation. I wonder if she asked any of them if they would even entertain rehabilitation. Even the police don’t like going into their operating area.

I am not blaming anyone. I am citing indisputable facts that show that when NYC had similar problems, then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani took steps to stop it. To this day, some sections of Chicago are still struggling against gang violence and the murder of innocents. NYC, which has a greater population, does not have anywhere near the amount of murders in a year that Chicago has had in the last four months.

As for enforcing current laws, what pro-2nd Amendment people mean by that is that most violent criminals shouldn’t be on the streets at all, and so the point about whether or not they should be allowed to purchase a firearm is moot. If there is eyewitness testimony and evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of murder or rape, that person shouldn’t be given freedom. He shouldn’t even be in a position where he is trying to buy anything, let alone a gun. That is what is meant by “enforcing current laws.” It’s definitely not an endorsement of states’ various gun control laws. If guns are taken away, violent crime will increase, as it has in the U.K. and Australia following national mandatory gun buy-back programs. Many of our founding fathers have stated that the only way to enslave a population is to take away their means of defending themselves. Hitler learned this and applied it in German-controlled states in 1936. Once he had removed all their guns, they had nothing to fight back with. That is why he was able to torture and murder more than 6 million people under his regime, and it only took him 4 years to do it.

Why doesn’t Congresswoman Lee or some of her “friends” propose tightening up the requirements in mental institutions and mental health agencies? How can anyone in their right mind release people who are mentally unstable onto the general public in any area of the country. It is not guns that have been around since time infinitum that are the problem. It is the person holding the gun who bears the responsibility of pulling the trigger. If they pull the trigger, they are committing themselves to the act. Many people who take that step end up killing themselves. Others who are more cowardly drop the gun as soon as they are confronted with superior force. These people are cowards as well as murderers. These are the people the liberal establishment champions: “Oh they had such a terrible childhood.” Despite what they would like us to think, many of us had childhoods that would make the ordinary person blush or puke. We got through it and learned how to make our lives better. We didn’t blame someone else for something we did. That is the difference between a responsible individual vs. a person who plays the victim. Liberals love victims and will make you a victim, even if you were the aggressor (or in this case a murderer.) Making you a victim adds to their elitist arguments that society is responsible for not understanding criminals, even when those criminals are murdering your children.

If you agree that there are enough gun laws on the books (and that there are proactive steps your local government can take to stop the spread of gang violence), then contact your Congressional representatives and demand they do something instead of just pointing fingers at themselves.

 

Is Thinking Dead?

Thomas Sowell SC Is Thinking Dead?

Thomas Sowell is an advanced thinker of the first order. Much of what he writes is thought-provoking, and he is not afraid to answer any inquiries that come his way. In his own words, he has said that whether the content is positive or negative, it is necessary to answer as many inquiries or comments as you can. An e-mail from one young man simply asked for the sources of some facts about gun control that were mentioned in a recent column. It is good to check out the facts — especially if you check out the facts on both sides of an issue. “By contrast, another man simply denounced me because of what was said in that column. He did not ask for my sources but simply made contrary assertions, as if his assertions must be correct and therefore mine must be wrong. He identified himself as a physician, and the claims that he made about guns were claims that had been made years ago in a medical journal — and thoroughly discredited since then. He might have learned that, if we had engaged in a back and forth discussion, but it was clear from his letter that his goal was not debate but denunciation. That is often the case these days.”

According to Prof. Sowell, “It is amazing how many serious issues are not discussed seriously, but instead simply generate assertions and counter-assertions”. On television talk shows, talking heads on opposite sides often just try to shout each other down. Many who want to argue for argument’s sake can do so by shouting back and forth at each other without engaging in any real coherent argument.

Prof. Sowell attributes much of this clouded thought to decades of dumbed-down education, which no doubt has a lot to do with it. But there is more to it than that. Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today; it is replaced to a great extent by ideological indoctrination and intimidation. Moreover, the teacher-student relationship is based on the same set of underlying and unexamined assumptions proferred by the administrators of those institutions. This misinformation is implanted in the minds of our youth so that over time, it becomes part of their thinking process (or lack of it.)

According to Prof. Sowell, “if our educational institutions — from the schools to the universities — were as interested in discussing legitimate ideas as they are obsessed with racial diversity, students would at least gain experience in seeing the assumptions behind different visions and the role of logic and evidence in debating those differences.” There is so much stress on political ideology instead of the three R’s that many students progress through school, whether they are able to pass simple vocabulary tests or not. Many students are graduating from high school with an eighth grade reading level. This is the beginning of their logical deterioration. A student can go all the way from elementary school to a Ph.D. without being exposed to any fundamentally different vision of the world from that of the prevailing political correctness which leads to controlled elitist thinking. Moreover, the prevailing ideological view has a moral content attached to it so they see themselves as being on the side of the angels against the forces of evil. Regardless of the issue, whether it is gun control, abortion, religious tolerance, race etc., they see themselves as being utterly intelligent and determined to make the “uninformed” public see it the way they do. This moral monopoly leads the left intelligentsia to impose their thinking in the institutions under their control, especially the colleges and universities. This results in far less freedom of speech on campus, which influences how the students will act once they graduate and rejoin society.

Advocacy of homosexuality, for example, is common on college campuses; and often, the student is obliged to listen to it. If the student has the temerity to state views contrary to the prevailing wisdom, it is considered “hate speech” and results in a threat of being ostracized or punished. Another glaring example of this intolerance on campus is that spokespersons for various racial or ethnic groups are free to vehemently denounce whites as a group for their past or present sins, real or otherwise; but any white student who similarly denounces certain actions of non-white groups can be virtually guaranteed to be threatened with being punished (or expelled.)

Even students who do not advocate anything will pay a price if they do not go along with being brainwashed. The student at Florida Atlantic University who recently declined to stomp on a paper with the word “Jesus” on it, as ordered by the professor, was scheduled for punishment by the university until the story (mostly through the efforts of Fox News) became public and provoked such an outcry that the university had to recant. Although they tried to play off the professor’s actions as being isolated, the university exposed its hypocrisy by initially backing him and coming down hard on the student. If it wasn’t for the outcry, the professor’s actions would have been overlooked (or, even worse, bolstered) by the university’s position. The failure of our educational system goes beyond what they fail to teach. It includes what they do teach (or, rather, indoctrinate) and the graduates they send out into the world, incapable of seriously weighing alternatives for themselves or for American society. Instead of making sure that the government answers to the people, an uninformed public does not have a voice of its own and will blindly be led by the government in power.

Thomas Sowell is a deep thinker who is able to ascertain what is ailing our society and writes about it regularly. People should listen to him and others who point out the injustices that begin in our schools and impose themselves on our elected officials and social institutions. An uninformed public is not able to control their destiny, but rather rely on the government to do it for them.

Know What Your Kids Are Being Taught!

Kids Sc Know What Your Kids Are Being Taught!

Parents need to get involved in shaping their children’s learning. Go to the school meetings and challenge anything that you feel is contrary to what you believe in. One example of how our schools administrators are subtly changing the views of our children is the case of the Union Grove schools in Union Grove, Wisconsin. Union Grove is a small rural community 16 miles west of Racine and 16 miles north of the Illinois border.  It has a population of approximately 4,300 people who enjoy the small town lifestyle with easy access to the larger nearby towns. One would expect a small rural town like Union Grove to be fairly conservative in many of their personal, religious, and political views.  But if you look at the lessons that students at Union Grove schools are being taught, you will find something entirely different.

Tamra Varebrook, a local conservative activist in Union Grove, recently discovered that her 13 year old daughter was being taught politically liberal views in her 8th grade class.  Her daughter came home from school with a crossword puzzle assignment that was part of a lesson plan on liberalism versus conservatism.  Varebrook, being a responsible parent, was reviewing her daughter’s homework when she discovered something that greatly concerned her.  The clue for the word Conservatism read like this: Conservatism – “The political belief of preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms and encouraging prosperity through economic freedom.”

If that isn’t bad enough, the definition for Liberalism was: “The political belief of equality and personal freedom for everyone, often changing the current system to increase government protection of civil liberties.” On the back side of the crossword puzzle was a political survey asking the students for their opinions on a number of political topics, including guns and gun control.

Varebrook immediately contacted the school district to complain about the definitions.  She said the school was sympathetic to her concerns and was told that the assignment was wrong and that the teacher feels horrible about it.  The Superintendent issued the following statement:

“At Union Grove Elementary School we have always encouraged parental feedback and have strove to present a balanced curriculum.  We sincerely regret any disapproval associated with this particular assignment.  We will continue to evaluate materials used in the classroom.”

Note that Stevenson says they regret any disapproval with the assignment, not that they regret the assignment itself.  Nor did she say that the school will change any of the teaching assignments. Now, they are going to review and evaluate the assignments being taught. What she really means is that she regrets that the school got caught teaching the students liberal philosophy. Varebrook told the local news: “I think it’s horribly distorted and it’s biased.  It’s insinuating conservatives don’t believe in people having civil liberties. That it’s only for old-fashioned fuddy-duddies. Every piece of homework I’ve seen paints conservatism in a negative light.  I can only imagine what high school is going to bring.” In an alternate reality, Varebrook might have uncovered a plot to indoctrinate the children to believe that only Liberals had good ideas and that Conservatives are the great Satan.

A recognized on line source, Dictionary.com, defines conservatism as: “The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.” “A political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change.”

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defined conservatism as: “A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs.”

There is nothing in the definitions that says anything about giving up one’s personal freedoms as was defined in the crossword puzzle assignment.  The designers of the homework assignment were obviously staunch liberals who took the opportunity to place their radical views into a public school lesson for the sole purpose of subtly making the students believe as they do. This is why it is so important for parents to be involved with their kids’ schools and the schoolwork and literature their children are being exposed to.

The alert parent is the ultimate defense for a free-thinking society. Demand that schools teach children from an objective point of view. History is history. It happened, and everything that took place is part of the story. What is not part of the facts is what you think took place and giving another reason from what really happened. History is objective for a reason. Everyone can learn what happened and then read about what the people at the time were thinking. Any historical event is a snapshot in time. What happens today is a snapshot of what is happening in our world now. Parents need to review what their kids are being taught, especially if they attend public school.  Varebrook is one parent who understands that and urges all parents to become more actively involved with their kids’ schools. “We have to be involved as parents.  Otherwise, there is nothing we can do to stop it.”

Please don’t make the mistake and think that this is just one isolated case of liberal brainwashing occurring in public schools across the country.  There are numerous documented instances of students being taught things like: homosexuality as normal, Christianity and the Bible are wrong, the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, America is the evil of the world, Islam is a peaceful religion, and students should be willing to give up their constitutional rights for the sake of safety and security. It is more important to fit in than stand up for your rights.

If you don’t know what your kids are being taught, you are putting them and yourself at risk. You need to take time to get involved and see for yourself. Become a part of your child’s learning process so they know you are interested in what they are being taught. By being involved, you open up the avenue of communication between your child and you. If there is something amiss, you will have a better chance of finding out about it by being able to openly discuss learning with your child and their teacher. This is the best way to protect your child from the onslaught of misguided opinion or outright misinformation being taught in public schools today.

Photo credit: JPott (Creative Commons)

The Last Intellectual

 The Last intellectual

Dr. Thomas Sowell is an advanced thinker of the first order.  According to Professor Sowell, “It is amazing how many serious issues are not discussed seriously, but instead simply generate assertions and counter-assertions”. On television talk shows, talking heads on opposite sides often just try to shout each other down. Many who want to argue for argument’s sake can do so by shouting back and forth at each other without engaging in any real coherent argument.

Professor Sowell attributes much of this clouded thought to decades of reduced thought education which no doubt has a lot to do with it. But there is more to it than that. Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today, it is replaced to a great extent by ideological indoctrination and intimidation. Moreover, the teacher student relationship is based on the same set of underlying and unexamined assumptions put forth by the administrators of those institutions. This misinformation is implanted in the minds of our youth so over time it becomes part of their thinking process or lack there of.

According to Professor Sowell, “if our educational institutions — from the schools to the universities — were as interested in discussing legitimate ideas as they are obsessed with racial diversity, students would at least gain experience in seeing the assumptions behind different visions and the role of logic and evidence in debating those differences.” There is so much stress on political ideology instead of the three R’s many students progress through school whether they are able to pass simple vocabulary tests or not. Many students are graduating from High School with an eighth grade reading level. This is the beginning of their logical deterioration. A student can go all the way from elementary school to attaining a PhD. without being exposed to any fundamentally different vision of the world from that of the prevailing political correctness which leads to controlled elitist thinking.

Moreover, the prevailing ideological view has a moral content attached to it so they see themselves as being on the side of the ultimate good against the forces of evil. Regardless of the issue whether it is gun control, abortion, Religious tolerance, race etc., they see themselves as being utterly intelligent and determined to make the “uninformed” public see things the way they do. This moral monopoly leads the left intelligentsia to impose their thinking in the institutions under their control, especially the colleges and universities. This results in far less freedom of speech on campus, which influences how the students will act once they graduate and rejoin society.

Advocacy of homosexuality, for example, is common on college campuses, and often the student is obliged to listen to it. If the student has the temerity to state views contrary to the prevailing wisdom it is considered “hate speech” and results in a threat of being ostracized or punished. Another glaring example of this intolerance on campus, is that spokespersons for various racial or ethnic groups are free to vehemently denounce whites as a group for their past or present sins, real or otherwise, but any white student who similarly denounces certain actions of non-white groups can be virtually guaranteed to be threatened with being punished, or expelled.

Even students who do not advocate anything will pay a price if they do not go along with the prevailing wisdom on campus. The student at Florida Atlantic University who recently declined to stomp on a paper with the word “Jesus” on it, as ordered by the professor, was scheduled for punishment by the university until the story mostly through the efforts of Fox News became public and provoked such an outcry that the university had to recant. Although they tried to play off the professor’s actions as being isolated, the university exposed its hypocrisy by initially backing him and coming down hard on the student. If it wasn’t for the outcry, the professor’s actions would have been overlooked or even worse bolstered by the university’s position. The failure of our educational system goes beyond what they fail to teach. It includes what they do teach, or rather indoctrinate, and the graduates they send out into the world, incapable of seriously weighing alternatives for themselves or for American society puts our society at risk. Instead of making sure that the government answers to the people, an uninformed or even worse indoctrinated public does not have a voice of its own and will blindly be led by the government in power.

Thomas Sowell is a deep thinker who is able to ascertain what is ailing our society and writes about it regularly. People should listen to him and others who point out the injustices that begin in our schools and impose themselves on our elected officials and social institutions. An uninformed public is not able to control their destiny, but rather relies on the government to do it for them.

Photo: SC

It Is Not A Hate Crime…

hate crime koran art bible blasphemy sad hill news It Is Not a Hate Crime...

Is it right for some in government to tell us who we want to live with in our neighborhoods or associate with in our workplaces or schools? We are charged with “hate crimes” if we speak out against the evils of terrorists who attack our country and despise our core values. Some “alternative lifestyles” or their “special groups” are constantly telling us what to accept as good. I believe that we as American citizens have a right to speak out against injustices wherever they happen to exist. As the Constitution states, God gives us this right, not the people in our government; that is what “inalienable” means.

We have people in Congress who think that the only solution to every problem is to throw money at it as long as it is not theirs. They want to take my hard-earned money and create massive bureaucracies to “give” relief to the less fortunate (who have stopped looking for a job and like sitting back and collecting more and more). Every one of us is known to the people in our government through our Social Security Number and the records they or their civilian information gatherers compile about us.

Because they think the only real education our children get should be provided by the state, our right to love and protect our families has been taken away from us. This government has allowed the Teachers Unions around the country to operated with impunity. Consequently, our right to have a say in our children’s educations in schools that we pay for has been taken away from us. When did we give up the right to act in the best interest of our family in choosing where we will spend our money or what school should be allowed to teach our children? If I want to send my child to a private school, that is my right. If I want to teach my child at home, I should be allowed to do so as long as my child can pass all the tests taken by the ones who attend public schools.

When did we give up the right to resist anyone who ridicules us for whatever reasons they choose? I believe in God and am proud to say so. That is not a hate crime; it is a fact. I don’t insist that you do, but I would love to help you if you want or need it. If you decide on your own to accept my God, I will do everything I can to help you on your way to eternal life.

If you choose to live with someone of the same sex, that is your right. If you want the state to condone that union, that is your right. If you want the Catholic Church to condone your union, that is not your right. It is mine. You can call your union anything you want, but you will not receive the blessings of the Holy Spirit or the sanctifying grace that comes from the sacrament of Matrimony, which is reserved for a Man and Women who are joined together by God.

I for one am sick and tired (to borrow a phrase from Bill Cosby) of hearing people give convoluted explanations to justify actions at the city, county, state, and federal levels. The hair stands up on my head when I hear them or our president say “Let me make this very clear.” I know I am in for a snow job when I hear those words from any official, especially my president. I will resist to my dying breath anyone who tries to take my rights away from me or my family, and that is not a Hate Crime. My rights come from Almighty God and not the sniveling, wheedling, dishonest politicians in our government. If you agree with me, hug your children and give them butterfly kisses and then step up and let your elected officials know where you stand.

Dr Carson Should Deliver The Commencement At Johns Hopkins

Ben Carson 2 SC 300x199 Dr Carson Should Deliver the Commencement at Johns Hopkins

Photo credit: Unalienable Rights by GOD- not Executive Order (Creative Commons)

Some Johns Hopkins students are campaigning to have Dr. Ben Carson pulled from this year’s commencement speaker line-up. They are angry about the comments the well-known neurosurgeon, made about same sex marriage. Carson has since apologized for having offended anyone and indicated he might withdraw from the commencement role. That would be a shame. The students could certainly benefit from what this self made alumnus has to say.

Dr. Carson, who rocketed to political fame after simply and eloquently pointing out the weaknesses of President Obama’s divisive policies during the National Prayer Breakfast, which Obama attended, made the same sex marriage comments on Fox News Tuesday night. 
Host Sean Hannity asked Carson his opinion on same-sex marriage, given the Supreme Court’s consideration of two gay (same-sex) marriage cases this week. 

Carson said I believe “Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.” Now that is what he said. How can anyone disagree with the logic and truth imparted by his statement.

Since the Middle Ages the term Marriage is reserved to a man and woman joining together as a unit. The word marriage has been used since Ancient Rome to describe the union of man and woman. It has always referred to the mutual consent of a man and a woman to wed (form a union). The term marriage is synonymous with another word wedlock which was also used in the Middle Ages in conjunction with Matrimony.

The Miriam Webster Dictionary defines the word marriage as a union of 2 people of the opposite sex. It does not say 3 people or 2 people of the same sex. It specifically says 2 people of the opposite sex. The only recognized source that even mentions the possibility of same-sex marriage is “Psychology Today”, a magazine. So where is Dr Carson wrong. He is not wrong, but the students have been indoctrinated to believe that homosexual activity is a good life style and is widely accepted. Today is a snapshot in history. Gay acceptance is being driven by the homosexual lobby and money in Washington DC. That is why Obama and other Liberal Progressives have evolved to accept same-sex marriage.

The Liberal oriented Health and Human Rights Student Group on Campus began circulating a petition, linked out of its Facebook page, challenging Dr. Carson’s selection as the 2013 commencement speaker for the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. That is the fallacy of the social media. Comments, opinions devoid of fact are foisted on the internet as fact. These students accused Carson of effectively comparing “gay relationships with pedophilia and bestiality.” Of course that is their slanted view. However, in many ways Dr. Carson is right. The students can’t see the forest for the trees because they have been taught to think that way by Liberal Progressive Professors who grew their teeth in the ’70′s. If same-sex is accepted, then why can’t you have bestiality, S&M, Incestuous, polygamy and any other combination of human beings. Once you open the barn door, all the animals can enter.

I bet If you asked any one of these students when the term “Gay” was coined to describe the homosexual life style they probably couldn’t tell you. Up until the 1980′s the “Gay” community as we know it today, did not exist. The word gay is defined as carefree and was used widely to describe life in the 1890′s, better known as the “Gay Nineties”. It was also used by Hollywood which had its own problems in the 1930′s. If someone cross-dressed in a comedic fashion they were referred to as gay. It wasn’t until after the Aids virus was introduced around 1986 that the term “Gay” was used as a term to describe someone who engaged in same-sex relationships. The Aids virus was described as being a homosexually transmitted disease. After heterosexual men were infected by blood transfusions, blood banks were not allowed to accept blood donated by homosexuals or someone who had sex with one or prostitutes. That practice is still in place today.

In the words of the students, “At the time of his nomination, Dr. Carson was known to most of us as a world-class neurosurgeon and passionate advocate for education. Many of us had read his books and looked up to him as a role model in our careers,” the group said. “Since then, however, several public events have cast serious doubt on the appropriateness of having Dr. Carson speak at our graduation.” 

What changed. Nothing except that Dr Carson offended the Professors and supporters of President Obama. Dr. Carson is still the same simple, self reliant, and eloquent speaker who wowed the audience at the National Prayer Breakfast. He has so much knowledge and good advice to impart.

If the misguided students at Johns Hopkins can’t see that it is their loss, not his. Even to that end, Dr. Carson on Friday told MSNBC it’s “their day and the last thing I would want to do is rain on their parade.” As for Dr. Carson, he has already been elevated by so many in the country, even grudgingly by the people in Hollywood when Cuba Gooding Jr. played the part of Dr. Carson in a movie about his life. Carson was hailed by conservatives, and even landed a speaking role at the Conservative Political Action Conference, for his remarks in February. So if he doesn’t speak at the commencement it is their loss not his.

Does Obama Really Care?

Obama Presidential Seal Podium Speech SC 780x1024 Does Obama Really Care?

Following an expose by Fox News, President Obama is going to write a $20,000 check to the U.S. Treasury this year, according to his press secretary, in a sign of solidarity with federal workers who face furloughs due to the sequester. However, he will keep going on family vacations, including his annual trip to Hawaii that costs taxpayers approximately $4 million per trip (according to estimates by the Hawaiian Reporter.) And that is supposing that Michelle goes to the same place this time. For the last several vacations, they have gone to separate locations, costing taxpayers double or triple what it should cost for one.

There is so much going on in Washington that it is really getting disturbing. The “Sequester” amounts to a 2% cut in the INCREASE in SPENDING, not the actual spending; and yet Obama is cutting the heart out of the public’s access to the White House or the ability to control illegal border crossings or reducing drug smuggling operations. For some reason, our president is forcing the average person to fear that the government is going to take something away from them. The latest is Medicare and cancer patients. All of the cuts are designed to inflict as much pain as possible on the average American; that is the only way Obama feels that he can get his way. He reminds me of a 6-year old who wants a certain toy and drives his parents crazy so they will give in and get him the toy.

Do you think he really feels your pain, or is he a very shrewd politician given his background in Chicago’s South Side?

President Obama has said on many occasions: “I am not a dictator; I am president.” What he really means is that he wants to be a dictator president. He is using everything at his disposal to inflict as much pain as possible to make the American people demand that Congress give him what he wants. When Congress resists his intimidating or tricky posturing and Harry Reid’s shenanigans, he uses his executive power to circumvent what Congress has put in place. For the life of me, I don’t know why Congress is letting him get away with slapping them in the face. They are becoming irrelevant. Congress could stop him, but they choose not to. Instead of thinking about what’s best for the country, they concentrate on what’s best for them and their continued stay in Washington. If we had term limits on Senators especially, it would do a lot to make them more compliant with their constituents and not their careers.

Since his drum-beating and scare tactics relating to the sequester is falling short, he is now traveling around the country as Campaigner in Chief, raising money and positioning his supporters to help make sure the Democrats take back the House in 2014. That way, he can push his programs through, just like he did with Obamacare. I think we all know what a disaster Obamacare is turning out to be. If he has his way, America will follow Europe into oblivion so that he and his supporters can install a Socialist system.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said “you have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”. Well, I think we know what is in it; and it is not good for anyone except Obama’s elite Liberal supporters who favor socialized medicine for you, but not for them. Under their system, the average American will have to buy health insurance from exchanges they control at an inflated cost; and  you will have no choice but to purchase or pay a hefty fine.

President Obama wants his legacy to be that he brought about a fundamental change in America. He wants to be able to say that in 8 years, he was able to undo more than 300 years of tradition and render the Constitution irrelevant in the world theater. If he can neutralize the First and Second Amendments, he will have succeeded in fundamentally changing the American system of government to closely resemble the European model.

That is what he wants. But I think he will get a fundamental change in the Senate in 2014. Harry Reid will retire under a cloud of suspicion about his activities in Nevada. The remainder of President Obama’s second term will be spent defending his stances on issues with a steady erosion of his influence around the world.

The next president will have his work cut out for him. He will have to undo most of the regulatory morass Obama leaves him so he can get the country back to work. Once America becomes energy independent, it will regain its rightful place as the strong influence for good in the world.

Obama’s HHS Mandate Disrespects Catholics Everywhere

Obama Pope Birth Control SC Obamas HHS Mandate Disrespects Catholics Everywhere

The HHS initiative is anti Catholic in its inception and its implementation. The Obama administration has demonstrated its disdain for Catholics and religious freedom in general. The initiative is a disgrace for what it intends to do.

Anyone who looks at the situation through an objective lens can see that this administration is trying to impose its will on Christians and especially Catholics. The government exists at the will of the people, and yet this administration constantly tries to pull the wool over our eyes as if we were children who cannot see through their obvious attempt to usurp our right to practice our religion as it has been prescribed for more than 2000 years.

The Obama government actually thinks it can change thousands of years of tradition and beliefs.  Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services should be ashamed of exploiting young women the way they are doing. They are encouraging women to go out and have sex with anyone and not worry because any mistake can be corrected within 72 hours, and all of this should be funded by their employer. It doesn’t matter whether or not their employer happens to be the Catholic Church, whose teachings specifically forbid the very action the government is championing.

In spite of the Constitution and the First Amendment (freedom of religion), the Catholic Church is being forced to fund contraception and short-term abortion. Of course, if the pill doesn’t work, the women can still “correct their mistakes” as the president so eloquently put it. He proved this was his view when he was a State Senator in Illinois. He voted to allow out-of-uterus abortion regardless of the term. This borders on infanticide and should be treated that way. Illinois’ morals are a question for another time. Now if all the precautions and pills fail, the women can still go to Planned Parenthood and have it taken care of right up to the day the baby is born.

At a recent Congressional hearing on abortion, Planned Parenthood was asked what should be done for a baby who is born and and still fighting for its life. Their answer was that the decision is up to the patient and the doctor. Of course, they were referring to the mother as the patient. They had to be reminded that since the baby was now a living person, he/she becomes the patient. Once confronted with the reality, having been caught off guard,  the Planned Parenthood spokesperson could not answer the question. And Planned Parenthood receives government funding. Do you see where this is going?

This is all part of a secular conspiracy to blunt the influence of the 1.2 billion members of the Catholic Church. This feeling of entitlement is instilled to keep the women dependent on the federal government for their every need. One thing the women should remember is: what the government gives to you, the government can take away. When that time comes, it is too late because you are so dependent you don’t even notice your rights slipping away. Once Socialists gain power, they throw away the vehicles they used to get it. Stalin massacred 20 million people after taking control of his government.

Soon, the Supreme Court will render its decision. The walls and doors of many buildings in DC have pictures and drawings of Christian and Catholic tradition and symbols on them. I hope the Supreme Court Justices are inspired by those images and hand down a ruling that reaffirms the rights of people of faith (and more specifically, the Catholic Church) to administer to people the way Jesus would.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath