Conclusions About Colorado Shooter Appear to be Wrong

Well once again, in their rush to blame the Right, the Progressive Left jumps to the conclusion that the Colorado Abortion Clinic shooter must be a crazy right-wing extremist or some sort of religious fanatic. Turns out the guy listed his political affiliation as UAF - United Against Fascism. According to their website, www.uaf.org.uk, UAF is a British political party formed to oppose the British National Party and the English Defence League.
They state: "Countering the threat of Fascism
As a matter of the greatest urgency, we are calling for the broadest unity against the alarming rise in racism and fascism in Britain today.
Over the last decade, racism and Islamophobia in society have grown. As a result, we have seen an increase in racist violence and attacks on multiculturalism. This has culminated in the rise of far right and fascist organisations, in particular the British National Party (BNP)."
There are also reportedly a number of Communists and members of the Socialist Workers Party among members of UAF.

Equally as curious as claiming to be a member of a British political party, the shooter also lists his gender as "female".

I am tempted to commit the same sin I accuse the Left of and jump to my own conclusions about the shooter. I'd like to say the guys seems like a typically well adjusted liberal.

However, it would be better to say that it is more likely that this guy is mentally ill and leave it at that.

The Real Thanksgiving

It is easy in America today to lose sight of the real reason the Pilgrims held the first Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving isn't about Black Friday sales. It isn't about a parade in NYC. It isn't about the game on TV. It's not about the food. It's about gratitude to God. It's true the Pilgrims invited the local Native Americans but it wasn't to thank them. That was just being neighborly.

Today, as we gather for our great national feast, Americans should join hands with those present and symbolically with our fellow countrymen, praise God and thank Him for our many blessings, and ask that He continue to bless America. It only takes a minute and it's the least we can do.

Hillary Most Trusted to Handle Terrorism Threat - WTF?

In the Nov 15-19, 2015 Washington Post-ABC News poll, respondents said they trusted Hillary more than any of the Republican primary candidates to handle the threat of terrorism. I find this both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. If the poll does accurately reflect the opinions, what possible rationale could make these people hold this opinion? It can't possibly be her lack of action to provide the needed security requested by the US ambassador in Libya or her handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the subsequent cover up. How about her performance as Secretary of State? The world is a far more dangerous place following her tenure. As a member of the Obama Administration, she owns part of the disaster that has occurred as a result of the premature withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq and led to the rise of ISIS. Hillary's support for overthrowing  Muammar  Khaddafi is yet another example of her poor judgement. Because of her policy which included a "Let's see what happens." plan for what happens after Khaddafi is gone, Libya has gone from a country that was assisting in the fight against terrorism to a safe haven for ISIS and their affiliates. What about her reckless disregard for national security demonstrated by her use of a private server for her official State Department email. Lastly, most people identify Clinton as a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. How can anyone "trust" her on anything? I'm baffled. Some liberal please help me out here. Please! I'm serious!!! Comments welcome and encouraged.

What Was Secretary of State John Kerry Thinking?

Less than a year after the attack in Paris on the satirical French newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, that left 11 dead and 11 injured, and only 5 days following the massacre that killed at least 135 people and wounded hundreds more in another attack on the French capital, Secretary of State John Kerry said the following during remarks at the U.S. Embassy in Paris:

"There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,...There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of - not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, 'Okay, they're really angry because of this and that.' This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate."

So mass murder is just a matter of magnitude? Wow, John! Mighty nuanced of you.

And this guy lectures and chastises other Americans about "our values"? I suppose I should just be the better person and give him the benefit of the doubt that this just came out wrong. Really, really, wrong.

Compromise Syrian Refugee Plan

Lest my readers and especially my critics think I am unsympathic to the plight of the refugees trying to flee the civil war in Syria, I offer the following plan that would provide safety to them while at the same time ensure our own security.

Accept the 10,000 refugees - Muslims, Christians,  Jews, Yazidi, etc.

Settle the women and children (all girls and boys under 15 years old) with the general US population. Place the men in refugee camps where they will be safe while we take the time to properly vet them to ensure they have no ties to terrorism. No time limit will be placed on this process - it takes as long as it takes. If they become impatient, we can offer to send them to another safe location in a different country.

Those that successfully assimilate into American society - learn basic English, have found productive work, have no criminal record, and are not on any public assistance - will be able to become permanent residents and even seek naturalization. Everyone else will be repatriated once it is safe.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable compromise. How many, liberal or conservative, agree?
Be the first to comment by clicking on "Post a comment" below.

Two Very Different Concepts of Impossible

Which of these positions makes more sense?

When it comes to securing the border, liberals and Democrats claim building the wall is impossible. People have been building walls for 1000s of years.

When it comes to allowing 10,000+ Syrian refugees to come to the United States, conservatives and Republicans claim it is impossible to properly vet these people who have no passports or no documentation from a country with a heavy terrorist presence and a hostile government.

To my mind, masonry construction, regardless of the scope of the project, seems less daunting than modern intelligence and counterterrorism work.

Obama's Keystone Decision Purely Political

So President Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline deal but what did this actually accomplish?

Well first of all it succeeded in ruining a deal with Canada - our close ally, good neighbor, and number one trading partner. It succeeded in killing potentially thousands of good, high-paying jobs for for mainly middle-class Americans. It might not be the numbers that proponents claim but there can be no denying that jobs that would have otherwise been created have just been prevented from seeing the light of day.

It prevented additional greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. Wait! No, actually it won't do that at all. As a matter of fact, it will probably result in a net increase in greenhouses gases. How you may ask? The answer is perfectly straight forward. The Canadian tar sands oil isn't going to be left in the ground. That much is certain. The Canadian government indicated that they wanted a decision from the U.S. government so that if America chose to not go through with the deal, Canada could pursue other options. Most likely the Canadian government will sell the oil to China. At best, that would be a net sum zero. However, that won't be the case. Petroleum refining in China is far less environmentally friendly than in the U.S.. Further, when the crude oil is converted into its end products, those that will be consumed in China will be used far less efficiently there than they would be had they been sold and consumed in the U.S. or Europe. Remember the scenes from the Olympics in Beijing? The smog there was so thick that one could barely see and people has to wear masks to protect themselves from the filth in the air. Events even had to be delayed or moved because the air was unsafe for the athletes to breath.

At least the environmental impact to America will be less. This was the major objection to the project by environmentalist groups. Again, actually it won't. Since the prevailing winds go from west to east, the pollution originating in China ultimately makes its way to America. Additionally, it will be potentially more dangerous as the risk of oil spills will increase dramatically. The reason again is simple. Crude not going through  a new, modern Keystone pipeline will either be transported by rail, truck or existing older, less safe pipelines. Once that crude makes it to the Canadian coast, it will be loaded on old, single hull construction Chinese tankers which, if involved in an accident such as a collision or grounding, will result in catastrophic spills. Moreover, rail and truck transportation is far riskier than pumping crude through a modern pipeline with its numerous safety features such as automatic monitoring and shutdown. Environmental activists like liberal billionaire Democrat donor, Tom Steyer (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/us/politics/financier-plans-big-ad-campaign-on-environment.html; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/billionaire-has-unique-role-in-official-washington-climate-change-radical/2013/02/17/23cdcf4c-6b26-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/billionaire_liberal_donor_gets_way_on_keystone_pipeline_122369.html) argue that the Keystone project posed a risk to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides drinking water to millions of people, plants, and animals. However, based on this concern, the route of the pipeline was changes to mitigate the danger which led to both the EPA and the State Department as well as other government agencies approving the project. 

It is pretty clear that killing the Keystone deal was more about politics than economics or the environment. For example, Mr. Steyer has fossil fuels and green energy business interests that stand to gain greatly from the death of Keystone and he used his influence to help elect candidates who opposed the deal. Steyer's supporters on the Left will be quick to point out that Mr. Steyer has divested himself from those businesses but aren't those the very same people who said Vice President Cheney was personally benefiting from the Iraq War because of his past association with Halliburton even though he no longer has any dealings with the company?

Politics - pure and simple! 

The 3rd and 4th Republican Debate: What a Contrast!

I didn't get to watch the debate last night because I was working. I did catch part of it on the radio during my drive home. Now I am watching the recording on my DVR. All I can say is "What a contrast from the prior debate!"

Fox Business Network and the Wall Street Journal did a fantastic job. It was moderated by true professionals - Gerard Baker (WSJ), Maria Bartiromo (FBN), and Neil Cavuto. Unlike their CNBC counterparts from the previous debate, these moderators asked substantive questions, remained objective, maintained order, and allowed the candidates to be the focus instead of injecting themselves and their own views into the debate.

How refreshing! A debate where the candidates are asked fair, pertinent, and meaningful questions on important national issues by grown-ups and then allowed to give their answer. This is exactly what a presidential primary debate should be - a dignified, informative, and civil event.

Hopefully the next Democrat primary debate will follow suit instead of being another softball lobbing, journalistic slobber fest as we have seen from the "journalists" who have run those debates in the past or the Sunday morning talk shows. The American public deserves it!

Tonight's 4th Republican Debate

Tonight will present an opportunity for the Fox Business Network to show what it truly means to be "Fair and Balanced" and, unlike their CNBC counterparts who moderated the last debate, ask questions of the candidates that give them the chance to detail their economic plans and policies. It will allow them to compare and contrast those ideas with the ideas of the other Republican primary candidates and more importantly, it will provide them with the opportunity to suggest solutions based in reality instead of the fantasy-based policies that have been presented by the Democrat primary candidates.

If all goes well, the Republicans will get the relevant, unbiased questions they say they want and the voters deserve. They might regret getting what they ask for though. There won't be any feel good, softball questions. The candidate had better have their facts and figures down or this might be the last time they get to participate in the main debate. Fumbling around for the numbers and/or a poor command of the math will translate directly into precipitous down movement in the candidates' poll numbers.

I wonder if anyone will grant the Democrat candidates and the voters the same opportunity? I wonder of they actually want it.

The Basic Econ of the Minimum Wage in Pictures

Believing a Known Liar is a Sign of Desperation

Why would anyone believe what someone who 60%+ consider to be dishonest, untrustworthy or a liar promises them? Even if you agree with what they say, why would you expect them to do what they say? Character matters folks and Hillary lacks it!