Vladimir Putin has schooled Obama in what it means to be a leader; unfortunately Putin wants to take us back to a time when Russia was the Soviet Union and their leaders had dreams of bending Uncle Sam over a tank and going all Ricky Martin on him. It's 30 years later than Putin wanted but his dream is coming true.
Obama welcomed the help of Russia in fighting ISIS in Syria, although he did have Lurch call Russia's foreign minister and express in our strongest language possible concerns about Russia's increased military presence in Syria. You see, Putin had promised he wouldn't have the Russian military become actively involved in helping Bashar Assad defeat the rebels. And Obama believed him.
Now there are not only is the Russian air force carrying out military operations but all of a sudden Russian ground troops have shown up in Syria. Maybe they are there for humanitarian purposes, like saving the Christians from having their heads separated from their bodies because they won't convert to Islam. I doubt it.
Now we have reports from not only U.S. intelligence but a number of other countries confirming that Russia air force is really attacking U.S. backed rebel forces in Syria. Oops, our bad, it's hard to tell the good rebels from the bad rebels since they all dress alike, look alike, and all hump little boys dressed like little girls and camels. Never mind that our military and CIA operatives told Russia where the ISIS rebel forces were located.
Now let's up the ante and see if Obama will fold or call our bluff, except that it's not a bluff. Chinese officials and Russian officials have met and agreed that China will send J-15 bomber units to the Middle East to help Russia's air campaign. They will join forces from Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah in fighting ISIS; at least that's the official line coming from the peace loving communist countries. China has already dispatched their aircraft carrier, Liaoning CV 16 to the area for the first ever military operation China has carried out in the Middle East.
Iraq's Prime Minister also announced that his government is making an air base inside Iraq available to Russia so they can fight any ISIS units terrorizing his country. As an added bonus, PM Haider Al Abadi said he would 'allow' Russian ground troops to target Chechen Muslims who are in Iraq presumably to fight along side ISIS; but Chechen Muslims have been fighting Russian troops in their homeland and causing Putin to be embarrassed since his army can't wipe them out.
Since last week, Russian military commanders have been working in Baghdad to coordinate the air and ground operations being staged at the Iraqi base. Guess who is there with them? Iran's military commanders. They are coordinating the transfer of Iranian Shiite forces into Syria to support Bashar Assad. Hezbollah fighters are training and fighting along side the Iranian military.
You don't suppose they'll turn their attention towards Israel after they've taken care of the Syrian/Iraqi situation do you? It might be a while because Russia is ogling the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, and the other Middle Eastern countries that are or used to be our allies.
I'm sure this is what Obama expected to happen, after all he's the smartest man in the world. I'll bet more of the Nobel committee is rethinking their decision to give him the peace prize.
Bernie gets to be the poster child for this one because he's been big in the anti-gun, pro-gun control/banning guns movement. We've been told by the liberals that we need to ban the so called assault rifles because the only thing those weapons an be used for are killing people. These tools are only used in mass murders or killing other people; never in defense of one's person or property or in target shooting contests... you know the mantra.
The FBI has released its 2014 list of crime statistics and there are some interesting revelations in the data that is gleaned from crimes in the states and the Virgin Islands & Guam. Not sure why those two territories are included and Puerto Rico is apparently omitted but that's how they compiled the report.
At any rate, there were 11,961 murders in the United States last year. 8,124 of them were committed using firearms of all types; handguns and rifles. It's interesting to note a couple of things, the total number of murders has dropped once again. That makes 5 years in a row, the high in 2009 was 13,752 murders and it's dropped steadily each year since then. In 2009, 9,199 murders were committed using firearms of all types. And it's dropped pretty much each year since then; in 2012 that number jumped up about 250 deaths but it's still a declining trend.
It's interesting to note that murders by rifles, which include the liberal created category 'assault rifles', account for only 248 of the 8,124 murders committed by firearms. That's something like 3% of all firearm related murders involved a rifle.
Let's put that into context a bit; about 1400 people were murdered using knives or other cutting instruments. 660 murders were committed using only a person's hands and/or feet. You're telling me that more than 2 1/2 times as many people were killed using only a person's appendages than were killed using all rifles?! I thought there was an epidemic of people using assault rifles to commit murder and create mayhem. Once we're done banning assault rifles, maybe we should handcuff and shackle everyone so they can't use their hands and feet to kill others.
Of course this won't deter the anti-gun crowd from continuing their efforts to ban guns. In fact, I'm sure they'll use the stats about handguns being involved in 5000 plus deaths to justify their plan to take away all guns. Then they'll go for knives or other cutting instruments, like scissors or scalpels... think about that next time you need surgery.
Let's be clear, there is a lot about what Donald Trump has been saying that I like. There is no doubt that he's entertaining and in some ways being honest about what he believes. I still am not sure that he's telling us the truth about everything given what he's said in the past about the Clintons, economics, taxation, and other issues. It's not lining up with some of the things he's saying or not saying now.
He's started to release some details about his tax/economic plan. Of course he's going to appeal to the low information voter by saying he wants to increase taxes on the rich, aka the "hedge fund guys" because they have all the money. Then he wants to lower taxes on the middle class; another hot button, attention grabbing platitude. Finally he says the poor shouldn't pay any taxes at all and should have a zero % tax rate. Alrighty then.
Let's learn from history shall we; I'm sure Trump will disagree and claim that he's a rich guy who's going to pay more taxes, but raising taxes on the rich doesn't create more jobs. It takes money out of the economy, where hedge fund guys could have used it to invest in businesses giving them the capital to start new businesses, expand existing businesses, or enter new markets; all of which create jobs. You can get more money from the rich in the form of taxes by lowering the tax rate and allowing them to make more money, create more jobs (thus more taxpayers) and increasing total revenues to the federal government. Everyone makes more money and the economy grows. See Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, George Bush, even Bill Clinton.
Many poor people already get away without paying income taxes because of the deductions that are available to them. Heck, some even make money because of the earned income tax credit. Thus they get money back they didn't earn or didn't pay into the system. Isn't it better to have everyone contribute some portion of their income to help the greater good? Everyone should have some skin in the game; that way they pay more attention to how their money is being spent and the politicians and bureaucrats are held more accountable.
Let's define 'poor'; who is that really? Only people living below the poverty level or is it a family of four able to make ends meet but are living paycheck to paycheck. Is it a middle class family with a good accountant and lots of deductions, who, on paper, have a gross adjusted income of less than $15,000 a year? They actually have a higher standard of living but on paper they are poor. And when you do draw the line at some arbitrary point, what about those people just above the line? Aren't they going to be jealous, upset, or feel like they've been slighted. You've now given them an incentive to work less because they can take home more money if they don't have to pay taxes. See what has happened in Seattle with the $15 an hour minimum wage crowd.
Nope, it works best if everyone pays a percentage of their income in taxes, an equal percentage. Then everyone is paying attention to the politicians, the IRS, etc and when the tax rate is low, is fair and manageable, the tax revenue increases. Find a candidate espousing this type of plan and you'll have your next economic boom.
Liberals are notoriously infamous for being unable to walk the talk. You don't have to look far for examples, you can find them in any and every walk of life, whether it be politicians, celebrities, billionaires, or your local motel owner. Even though it is so pervasive, I am still amazed when seemingly intelligent human beings cannot see the hypocrisy in their failure to live by their espoused principles.
Drew Brees, the very talented QB of the New Orleans Saints, has been a long time union man. As I recall he's been a union rep, he's been very critical of anything the league has done in the terms of player salaries, pay scales, punishment etc. Brees has espoused the union line about collectivism, how the players must protect each other and stand united. From the best players to the practice squad players, they must all participate in the success of the league; the owners shouldn't be making so much money off of the backs of the players, and so on. It's a droning sound that you all know very well.
Yet when it came time for Brees to negotiate his latest contract with the New Orleans Saints, he went for all the money he could get. If not the richest quarterback in the league, he's darn close. But here's the kicker; the NFL is a salary cap league. Each team can only spend so much money on salaries for players. In 2015 it will increase to $143.28 million. That is a lot of money to spend and it will make many players a lot of money. But it's a cap and the teams can't spend any more than that, it's not baseball.
In a truly socialist/communist world, each player would make about $2.7 million a year. But some players are better than others, some players don't play in games and thus some players get paid more money than others. Drew Brees signed a $100 million contract, deservedly so. Yet it hurts the team in the long run because of how much money it counts against the cap. In the first couple of years, it's a $10-11 million hit against the cap which is manageable. But this year it's reported to be a $26 million hit against the cap. That means New Orleans is spending about 18% of its salary amount on 1 player. So some players aren't going to get paid what they might be worth or they may leave New Orleans all together.
Enter Jimmy Graham, the all world tight end for New Orleans. The guy is a beast and a favorite target of Brees especially in the end zone. He was traded to Seattle in the off season in a move that was clearly made because of salary cap issues. Brees has forgone his rhetoric about sticking together and doing what's best for the players and put his own selfishness and greed above the interests of the collective. Now the team doesn't have the money to attract or keep other top notch players. Just look at what happened to them last week; they lost to the lowly Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
You see, Brees, as a true liberal, can talk a good game but when it comes to his money, oh don't even dare suggest he take less to help out the team or his fellow players. By God, he earned every penny he was able to get. And he's right he did. Free market capitalists have no problem with getting as much as the market will pay you, if you earn it based upon your value. But for Brees, he can't walk his talk and that's what bothers us as much as anything about liberals. They will tell us how to live our lives, but won't live by the rules they claim are good for us.
Shelly Goode's son, Jaegur, found himself in trouble at school. The principal at Seagoville High in Dallas asked Jaegur to unzip his hoodie and show him the t-shirt Jaegur was wearing. When the principal saw the t-shirt he immediately put the teenager into in school suspension. The t-shirt was offensive. The t-shirt might cause others in the school, especially minorities (ethnic or religious) to feel inferior or slighted in some way. The t-shirt Jaegur was wearing was an American flag t-shirt with an eagle emblazoned over the flag.
This situation is all too common in America today. There are stories every week about kids being suspended for wearing American flag apparel; homeowners associations forcing people to remove American flags from public display; public officials taking down American flags from public buildings so as not to offend anyone. People who justify taking these actions are morons, pure and simple. This is America and we should be proud of our country. Moreover we have a right to express that pride and love; see the Constitution.
Explain something to me, because I'm having trouble reconciling the positions of liberals on this and other issues. Liberals don't want to offend anyone by displaying symbols of patriotism. They see America as evil, as the reason there is war or poverty or oppression in this world. They believe we have been imperialistic and caused great hatred around the world. Obama believes if we just pull out of the Middle East,for example, that things would be all hunky dory. How's that working out for you, Glorious Leader?
Internally, liberals will tell you that we are a racist and bigoted country founded on racist principles. Any minority, whether based upon ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is persecuted by the majority. We are told over and over again that America is not really the bastion of freedom and equality that we thought we have been. Just look at our prison populations or the cops shooting blacks in the street. Just look how we treat gays and lesbians. You know the arguments all too well.
Yet, liberals want our borders to be open. They don't want to enforce existing immigration laws or build a fence or wall to keep people from coming here illegally. They say we can't turn away the poor and oppressed because they are coming here to build a better life for themselves and their families. We can't send illegal immigrants back to their home countries because we would be sending them back to abject poverty and people will die.
But if we kick them out of America, aren't we saving them from the humiliation of bigotry and racism? Aren't we saving them from possible death because so many people want to kill Americans because of our oppressive foreign policies and militaristic actions? Wouldn't it be better to kick them out of a country that is the cause of all the world's troubles? I can understand people wanting to come to America if we were truly a land of freedom, equality, and opportunity, but liberals tell us that we are not.
I guess liberals believe that if they let enough illegal immigrants into America they can change our culture and we will become a model country to be envied by all. You know, just like those countries the immigrants are risking their lives to leave.
Salon.com; way left on the political scale but popular with many on that side of the aisle, has begun the to support the steps that pedophiles want to take in order to become mainstream, accepted in society. They published an opinion peace from a man who says he is attracted to young girls, maybe boys too, the piece is somewhat fuzzy on that issue, but nonetheless he is attracted to young people. He says he has not acted upon his urges and will not because he doesn't want to hurt young people. But he chronicles his life of depression, loneliness, and such. How he was momentarily abused as a young boy, just once. He tries to create a sympathetic picture, hoping I assume, that many in society will see his struggle, his pain, and his triumph of not hurting children and begin to soften their stance about pedophiles. He wants the ban upon such relationships lifted so he can feel normal. Of course we said this was going to happen, because he's using the arguments that he was born that way or life events made him that way and he can't help it. But let me ask you this: if a sexual relationship between an adult and a child would hurt that child, just how would eliminating the legal and moral obstructions to such a relationship change anything? A child does not have the maturity or experience to understand a sexual relationship of any kind much less with an adult, making it legal doesn't change that.
These two high school football players from John Jay HS in San Antonio appear to be correct in their claim that their coach told them to punish the official for making 'racial slurs' and 'bad calls'. According to ESPN's Outside the Lines, the assistant coach has sent a letter to the administration confirming his statements to the boys. To many, this exonerates the two boys. It does not in any way shape or form, especially in today's society. I listened to some of the ESPN commentators discuss how a high school athlete cannot stand up to a coach. They would be eviscerated by the coach and their playing careers would be over. But these same people in other situations say you have to stand up against authority when that authority is clearly wrong. These boys could have taken a stand and said, "no". Maybe they would have been benched, but when they told their parents why, then this would have come to light and the boys would have been heralded as heroes instead of thugs. And these days, coaches don't have the same authority as they did when I played. Coaches were Gods back in my high school days. You did not argue with them, yet I watched other kids stand up to them when they were told to do something that wasn't quite right. Today, we have coaches getting in trouble for just yelling at the precious little snowflakes and destroying their self esteem; the coach doesn't carry the same gravitas as he did in the past. Teach these kids to do the right thing which is to say no to hurting an authority figure. But than again, they are being taught to hate cops and kill them, frying them like bacon... UPDATE; turns out there was a third player told to hit the referee and he didn't do it...
Have you seen the commercials for those walk in bathtubs? The ones marketed at seniors who might slip and fall getting out of a regular tub, or can't get in and out because it's hard to stand up anymore. How come the environmentalists haven't gotten after those companies? These things have to be using a ton of water; they are 5-6' long and 3 feet deep maybe. I'm not going to do the math but that's got to be a hundred gallons of water to take one bath. And don't get me started on how much hot water they'll use. The Pope's not going to be happy when he learns that old people soaking in a walk in tub are contributing to global warming. Seniors, you are jeopardizing your place in heaven. Just saying.
You know that burning feeling you get when you take the first shot of whiskey? That's your soul healing.
Remember the old adage, be careful what you wish for you just might get it. So many people would do well to really think about that before they make decisions. Remember Joan Londun, long time host of Good Morning America? She wanted to be the breadwinner in her family, so her husband stayed home and raised their kid, ran the house, you know, was a housewife. When they divorced he wanted alimony, she fought it tooth and nail saying he was a man and could earn his own money. Oh the irony & hypocrisy. I also recall a story we did years ago about a lesbian couple wanting to get married; they did then when they divorced, they got to learn about the acrimony of splitting up marital assets and child custody.
Now it turns out the transgender women are getting exactly what they asked for when they decided to start living as women without having their rod and reel removed. Shadi Petosky claims she was harassed at the Orlando airport last Monday when the high tech fancy schmancy body scanner detected an 'abnormality' about her body. Shadi lives as a woman; she was dressed as a woman and identified herself as a woman. The TSA agents thus calibrated the scanner for a woman. Of course when the computer software detected an object that should not be there, it set off alarms. Ms. Petosky was pulled aside for a search.
Shadi disclosed her situation immediately but the bureaucracy doesn't allow for common sense or initiative; everyone must be treated the same. Shadi was patted down, scanned, had her luggage searched. That's the way it should have been. Women aren't supposed to have cylindrical objects between their legs, at least when they are flying. What they do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business. What if it was a Jihadi trying to sneak a bomb onto the plane? Not outside the realm of possibility.
Ms. Petosky was given the opportunity to re-enter the scanner and identify herself as a male. Thus the machine would register an "OK" and allow her to move along. She of course would think that's discriminatory and ignores who she really is 'inside'.
The TSA website tells everyone to identify themselves as the gender that is on their official government ID card to avoid these situations. Be sure that it happens to women wanting to become men. Boobs and a lack of a fleshy protuberance between the legs sets of alarm bells in the scanner as well.
Let this be a lesson; you want to be treated like a woman, you will be treated like a woman. If you have junk that women are not born with, then you'll have to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Ben Carson says he wouldn't want a Muslim as President of the United States; now the left and some on the right are in a tizzy calling him a racist and a bigot. Where to start. All of the hypocrisy, ignorance, and intolerance is about to make my head explode.
First of all, what Carson said was absolutely right. I would not want a devout Muslim in the White House for a number of reasons. I am absolutely sure that if a Christian wanted to be President and said he would establish a theocracy, the left would be apoplectic. They can barely stand having someone who is religious in any way shape or form as it is. By the way, that's what Ben Carson said also.
Anyone occupying the office of President of the United States must swear to uphold the Constitution. Devout Muslims cannot and would likely not do that; it goes against their teachings. A Muslim always prefers Shariah law over democracy, submission over freedom, Khilafah over secularism, Jihad over oppression, Allah over government. Those are not my words, those are words said by the noted tolerant Muslim, Anjem Choudary, among others.
So let's ask you liberals the $64,000 question? Why would you want a devout Muslim to be President of this country? Simple, to show that you are tolerant and accepting. That's it, pure and simple. Because you see, a devout Muslim disagrees with you on so many issues. You liberals want the LGBT community to live in harmony and have equal rights; Sharia law based countries stone them to death. Women are not at all equal under Sharia law, they are property, treated similarly to how we treat pets in this country. They cannot drive, be in public without a male relative, can be divorced if her husband would rather fornicate with a goat, but she cannot divorce even if he beats her mercilessly, because you see it is her fault. She cannot drive a car, she cannot vote, she cannot get an education. Should I go on or is your head exploding? I haven't even touched on criminal punishments that are common place.
Simply, Dr. Carson is dead on in his point. If someone of any religion wants to put their religious beliefs above the Constitution of these United States, then he or she should not be in charge. Calling him or me a bigot doesn't make you right or us any less correct, it just shows that you don't have a logical argument.
Obama won't dare tell Muslims or Muslim run countries how to run their lives or nations but he sure can't help himself when it comes to Christians. Just look at who he's invited to the White House to greet the Pope.
On the list of invitees to meet the Pope are transgender activists, a gay Episcopal bishop, and the leader of a group of nuns intent upon changing the Catholic teachings on abortion and euthanasia. Why not invite a group of Satan worshipers to hold an orgy in the Rose Garden while you're at it?
Certainly you can bring up issues of concern with the Pope if you want, but that should be done in private, not in a public ceremony. The Pope's staff is concerned that including these people in photos with the Pope could be misconstrued as an endorsement of their activities. These people are violating basic tenets of the Catholic faith so it's unlikely anything will change with the Holy See's stance anytime soon.
Did Glorious Leader invite an women's rights activists to the White House when the Saudi Arabians were there this month? Did he invite anyone from the LGBT community to break bread with them given their intolerance of homosexuals, whom they put in prison or stone to death? Which group, the Catholics or Muslims are more tolerant of those that commit sins? I don't remember seeing anyone from the Inquisition running around putting sinners on the rack recently but I have seen numerous stories about women driving cars in Saudi Arabia being punished.
I wonder also if the White House has invited anyone from an anti-abortion group to attend the ceremony with the Pope. No probably not even though that group shares a cause with the Vatican, but is seen as intolerant and evil by the liberal left.
I watched most of the Republican debate on CNN last night, although I had to get up, walk out of the room and calm down several times. It was such a blatant attempt by Jake Tapper and CNN to bash the Republicans, often ignoring several candidates for 10-15 minutes or more; especially the ones that scare them and their liberal friends in the Democrat Party.
Did you notice that the questions asked by the CNN staff were almost always pitting one candidate against another? "Dr. Carson, did you like what Donald Trump said about you or your plan for..." "Mr. Trump, Jeb Bush has said your immigration plan is racist, what do you think about Mr. Bush?" There weren't questions about the current administration's policies or record. There weren't questions to compare and contrast how each candidate might do things differently than the Democrat/RINO controlled Congress.
And let's talk about what former Secretary of State George Schultz said 30 years ago about some topic. Why not talk about what current Secretary of State John Kerry said about the Iran nuclear deal or Russia's aggression in Syria? Why not talk about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of Benghazi or top secret information? No that's hitting too close to home and won't reflect well on CNN's favored candidates.
Certainly there has to be some comparison and contrast between the Republican candidates but that should not dominate the debate. People want to know what these candidates will do differently if they are elected and go to Washington. People want to know how a candidate will deal with a dysfunctional Congress, especially with the lilly livered John Boehner and Mitch McConnel.
It is interesting that much of the early part of the debate was focused on Donald Trump, completely ignoring Ted Cruz for a good 15-20 minutes; forcing others, such as Marco Rubio or Scott Walker to butt in just to be able to speak. Tapper and others in the mainstream media think Trump is a clown and can't win. Cruz and Walker scare them because Cruz is articulate and shares similar opinions on some issues as Trump. Walker has kicked the liberals butts in Wisconsin three times and had great successes in rebuilding that state's economy using conservative principles. We can't have him speaking to the American people now, can we?
And Hugh Hewitt, whom I've never listened to or read his blog, is a conservative in some ways. But his questions too often made assumptions about that echoed liberal mantras. For example he said something along the lines that gun violence is endemic in America, inferring that we as a nation need to do something about guns. Mr. Hewitt, gun violence among legal gun owners is not endemic. Gun violence among gangs and criminals is endemic but it's not the guns that are the problem. It's the poor economic conditions in mainly black communities, the lack of social structure, and other issues that face many poor of all colors in this nation. If guns are taken away, they'll use knives, rocks, bombs or something similar to kill each other.
It will be interesting to compare the treatment of the Republican candidates to that of the Democrat candidates when they debate in a couple of weeks. I wonder how many times Anderson Cooper will ask Hillary or Bernie to compare themselves to each other?