Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico


Georgia Special Election; what it is and what it’s not

We will have a runoff in the Georgia special election because no candidate got 50% or more of the vote in an open election. Running up to the election the left wing was telling you that this was potentially a referendum on the presidency of Donald Trump. Of course the results would determine whether or not they would continue with that line of reporting. This was not a referendum on Donald Trump in any way shape or form. Let’s get a few facts straight about this election.

If the Georgia special election was truly a referendum on Donald Trump and the job he is doing is president, then why wasn’t the Kansas election also a referendum? Oh that’s right, a Republican one that election. So once again, when the left wing and the mainstream media don’t get the result they want, they move on as if there is nothing to see here.

Jon Ossoff garnered 48% of the vote and will face a runoff election with Karen Handel. Ossoff is the Democrat candidate while Handel was the top Republican. Handel garnered just under 20% of the vote creating the narrative that voters in Georgia and thus around America are tired of Donald Trump and don’t like the job he is doing. But looking beyond the headlines and the pablum being fed to you by the left-wing media, Karen was one of 15 Republican candidates who clearly split the vote on that side of the aisle. Ossoff was one of three Democrat candidates and benefited from a tremendous amount of outside money poured into the race by the Democrats.

It should be noted that the ad campaigns run by the Democratic National Committee and other Democrat organizations rarely even mentioned Ossoff and what he stood for. Instead they concentrated their advertising on running against Donald Trump. Samuel L Jackson’s radio had never even mentions the candidate’s name but talks about the racism and bigotry of Donald Trump. Maybe that’s because also is a borderline communist who supports high taxes, large government; in fact he has proposed a 100% tax rate on income and profits over a certain level. I don’t think that would go over well in the sixth District of Georgia which is generally conservative. So don’t run on what you believe run against some other Dragon.

It’s likely that many of the people who split the Republican vote will come out in support Handel in the June runoff election. It’s also likely that more of Ossoff’s beliefs and principles will become an issue in this election between now and then. Either way, those results still will not be a referendum on Donald Trump.

How is it that also can even run for Congress in this district? He lives outside the district. In several interviews he said that he is, “only one and a half miles down the road” from the district. He said he will move back to the district when his girlfriend graduates from medical school but how does she know she’s going to do her internship for residency in that district? But even then he does not live in the district and could not even vote in this election. Further, he claimed that he had grown up in the district. So what?

If you want to follow his logic, using that term very loosely, then everyone should be able to run in any political race for any political office wherever they want to. I live about a mile outside the city limits but I cannot run for political office in the city. Ossoff should not be able to run for office in the six the district either. I grew up for the most part in SilverCity living on Panorama Road, 12th St., Oak Street, and other places in SilverCity. Also said growing up in the six the district gives him knowledge about what the people of the district want. While I grew up in SilverCity and work inside the city limits so I must have knowledge about what the people of SilverCity want, so why can’t I run for city Council?

This is just another example of why so many Americans are fed up with the political process. It’s not just the hypocrisy of the left wing saying this is a referendum on Donald Trump when the election they lost is not a referendum, but it’s the bending and breaking of the rules that we all thought we knew allowing somebody like Ossoff to run for Congress in district in which he does not live. It’s another example of why we need to get rid of all the career politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe we need term limits not only on politicians but on bureaucrats as well.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Our judicial system in crisis

We have talked about the state of our judicial system off and on for quite some time. Usually we’re talking about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also known as the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, which regularly ignores the Constitution and the laws of this United States as an act of people’s representatives to try and accomplish what they believe to be right.

However, over the last few years and now in the last couple of months, we have seen judges become blatantly proactive in coming up with some of the most convoluted reasons to “justify” their decisions. These recent decisions in which courts have granted injunctions against Pres. Trump’s executive orders regarding immigration from seven countries are the most egregious examples of judicial activism yet.

While two judges ruled against Pres. Trump in different jurisdictions, the judge in Hawaii is the most idiotic. Even Alan Dershowitz, no fan of Donald Trump or his executive order, disagreed with the judges “logic” in justifying the ruling. Probably the most troubling reason the judge gave for filing the injunction was that Pres. Trump had made certain comments during the presidential campaign that led this judge to believe he and everyone who helped write the Executive Order were bigoted towards Muslims. Now this had not been argued nor had it been presented as a justification by the plaintiff but even if it has is not supposed to be allowed into a court hearing. But the judge came up with it on his own.

As Dershowitz pointed out, based upon that ruling alone this decision should be overturned quickly. Because what happens is the argument that okay, if you use statements that Pres. Trump made outside of any action related to this Executive Order then this order would have stood the judges test at Pres. Obama been the one signing it. That is not the standard for judicial review. It is beyond the pale for a judge to do that.

As Dershowitz also pointed out, if Pres. Trump were trying to ban all Muslims from entering the United States and why did he not include every Islamic country in the Executive Order rather than a small percentage of the population of Muslims from around the world as represented in the seven states identified by Pres. Obama as promoting terrorism against the United States?

Which takes us to another point; this judge in Hawaii said that Pres. Trump had not established a case to prove that the Muslims emigrating from these countries were a danger to the United States. First of all the seven states identified in the Executive Order were placed on the list by Pres. Obama and his security and national defense staff. They identified the seven states as promoting terrorism against the United States and its citizens. They use that list to justify their own immigration ban just a few years ago. That said, under the statute that gives the president clear authority to take this action, the standard of proof is very low. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would disagree that the seven countries contained a large number of people involved in terrorist organizations and have exported that terroristic acts to other countries. This would include the United States.

The judge went on to say that the state of Hawaii would suffer economically because of the decrease in tourism and the lack of students coming to their universities from the seven countries. Hawaii could not show factual documentation that this was the case and that a significant number of tourists come from places like Iran, Iraq, Syria or the Sudan. I would venture to say that the number of people traveling anywhere from some of these countries is minuscule when it comes to tourism. And let’s not forget that the Executive Order very clearly set out exemptions for people who already had visas as tourists, workers or students or had a green card.

But the most damning action taken by this judge, and is certainly not the first, is to grant protection to noncitizens under our Constitution. He claimed that banning Muslims from these countries was a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Let’s be very, very clear: The U.S. Constitution does not provide any rights to non-citizens. Period. End of story. And apparently we do have to say it again, this is not a ban on Muslims this is a ban on anyone in that country and these are not 100% Muslim countries.

These recent decisions paired with the increasing frequency of activist judges, decisions foretell a serious crisis in our country. The judges are creating policy and creating law when they do not have that power. They are here to act as a check up on the other two branches of government to ensure that the laws that are passed in the way those laws are applied are in accordance with the founding documents of this United States of America. They are not to further goals and cannot be achieved politically in any way shape or form. It’s either a yes you can do that or a no you can’t.

To continue allowing these judges to exceed the authority granted to them by we the people is to take this country down the road that we do not want to travel. Many of us have been worried about the expansion of government and the possibility that either the legislative or more likely the executive branch of government would become something of a dictatorial body ruling over the citizens of America. The real danger has been and now more than ever is the judicial branch. We watched the Supreme Court come to decisions, most obviously with Obama Care, that were unbelievable. Twisting the language of the law in ways was not intended in order to find that it was constitutional. Do you remember Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid telling us that the individual penalties in the bill were not taxes? Yet Justice Roberts had to find that these were taxes in order to uphold the constitutionality of the bill.

You might be asking now, what do we do about it? First, let’s Pres. Trump appoint true constitutional judges to the Supreme Court. And while I know the reasoning behind having lifetime appointments for judges, in today’s world that doesn’t necessarily work well. Maybe at levels just below the Supreme Court, we need to have a judicial review panel that can recommend to Congress whether to keep or remove judges based upon their adherence or nonadherence to the Constitution. I think it’s also time to start looking at non-attorneys as judges. Having a law degree does not mean that you are any smarter or more well-versed in our Constitution than anyone else. I would put any graduate of Hillsdale College against almost every one of our appeals court judges when it comes to arguing constitutional law.

I know that some of these ideas need to be fleshed out as to what to do with these judges but if we don’t do something soon it may not matter what reforms Donald Trump tries to put in place because some judge somewhere is going to try and stop him. Maybe he can do what Obama did, ignore the judges and do what he wants anyway, it seemed to work pretty well for him.


It’s all about power: example # umpteen million

I have said it recently but it bears repeating; the actions of our political elite, primarily the liberal Democrats, but including the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress, care more about power than they do about having principles and doing what is right. Maybe they do have principles, it's just that their guiding principles have to do with staying in power and not trying to improve this country.

Chuck Schumer is threatening to shut down the federal government to prove a point to Pres. Trump and the Congressional Republicans. He wants to stop things like the building of the wall in the Mexico border and some other plans that Pres. Trump has outlined, and he's willing to filibuster the budget bill to get his way. As a side note, it's interesting to watch the Democrat leadership who are acting like they are still in charge of Congress and the White House. If the Republicans had leaders in either house with the backbone and principles, they would do exactly what the Democrats did to them when the Democrats controlled Congress; tell them to shut up and go along.

It is worth pointing out that in 2013 when Republicans threatened to filibuster the budget bill and shut down the federal government, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and their brethren screamed to high heaven. They talked about how much those actions would hurt the average citizen especially the poor, the elderly, those that rely on the government for their income, not to mention the federal employees that would be laid off. Yet here they are threatening to do the same thing and ignoring all the reasons they gave against shutting down the government in the first place. So to play by their rules, they must be wanting grandma to guide to she can get her Medicare or Social Security check; they must want little children to start because school lunches will be funded or mommy's welfare check wont come through.

Let's ignore the fact that if there is a government shutdown there is already a law that provides for the providing of essential services such as the administration of transfer payments, Social Security benefits, veterans benefits, so on and so forth. No one is going to start or die because the government "shutdown".

But here is why I think Chuck Schumer may not want to go through with this plan. If he shuts down the government he plays right into the hands of Pres. Trump in keeping one of his campaign promises; to cut the size of the federal government and get rid of the fat. If you shut down the government, especially for an extended period of time and begin to see which departments are considered non-essential, that helps him identify where to cut waste and excess government departments. That of course will diminish the power that government hands over the average American citizen and our lives.

So I say, "shut it down!" Let's figure out where we can start cutting people and the sooner the better. Microphone off


Black History Month and Real History

February is Black history month, a time to celebrate the achievements of black people in America and to reflect upon what still needs to be done to minimize the effects of racist people and racist policies in America. That we can have a discussion about how far minorities have calm, how well they have it in America as compared to other countries, and so on. But it's interesting that the Democrats tracked themselves out every February and claim to be the champions of minorities and to decry what the conservatives or Republicans want to do to the black community. As we know, whomever controls history controls the future. So it's worth going back and looking at the actual facts in our past when it comes to racism.

the Democratic Party supported slavery since its inception and it became popular in America especially in the South. In 1816 the 13th amendment 100% support from the Republican representatives to Congress while 78% of the Democrats in Congress opposed abolition.

In 1868 the Democrat party nominated Horatio Seymour and Francis Blair as candidates for president and vice president respectively. Their campaign slogan was, "this is a white man's country. Let white men rule".

In 1916 president Woodrow Wilson issued an order segregating restrooms in what is now known as the Eisenhower executive building. The order read. "Beginning Wednesday, August 9, 1916, the toilets in the state, war, and Navy Department of buildings will be allotted for use as toilets for women, for white men, and for colored men". It was signed by none other than secretary of the Navy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In January 1922, Republicans in the house of representatives passed a bill that would make the lynching of black people a federal crime. It was a crime that was not being prosecuted in the South by states which were controlled by Democrat governors and legislators. Democrats control the United States Senate and filibustered the bill ultimately killing it.

in 1937 Pres. Franklin Roosevelt nominated Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Opponents were concerned about his association with the Ku Klux Klan. Black never said a word but let his supporters denied that he was ever a member or supporter of the KKK. After being confirmed Justice Black admitted that not only had he been a member of the Ku Klux Klan but that he had earned the gold passport or lifetime membership.

United States Senators Al Gore Sr. and John Kennedy rallied the Democrats against of the original civil rights act sponsored by Pres. Dwight D Eisenhower and Congressional Republicans. Pres. Kennedy then reintroduced the Civil Rights Act and in Congressional debate in 1964 Sen. Robert Byrd, former grand Cyclops of the KKK, filibustered the measure. Republicans finally garnered enough votes to break the filibuster but Sen. Byrd and 22 other Democrats still voted against the Civil Rights Act.

When it came time to vote on the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to be the first black Supreme Court justice of the United States, there were 11 votes against him. 10 of them were Democrats. The only Republican to vote against Marshall was Sen. Strom Thurmond who had been a segregationist Democrat before joining the Republican Party.

We could go on about Governor George Wallace or Bull Connor of Alabama, or the Jim Crow laws and efforts to keep black from voting in the south, all carried out by Democrat politicians; but we won't. Those are, or should be well known examples of the racism of the Democrat party.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Random thoughts and observations

it seems that we are experiencing a time in our country when liberal hypocrisy is being featured not only in their words but their actions as well. Don't get me wrong, liberal hypocrisy has always been on display but when you add the level of emotion that liberals are experiencing right now they tend to lose what little ability to think rationally that they may have had before. Many of you probably have not been aware of what is going on with the New York Knicks of the NBA. The Hall of Fame coach, Phil Jackson, was hired by the team to be the general manager and president of basketball operations. By all accounts he has done a terrible job. He is trying to get rid of their best player by humiliating him in public, he is hired a coach that does not like to run the offense that Phil made famous and requires him now to run that offense. He has done everything that he hated in a general manager when he was a coach. But I was listening to Stephen A Smith and a couple of other pundits and they opined that Phil is doing everything he can to get fired. Because if he's fired collects the remaining $24 million due him on his contract. If he quits, he doesn't get that money. It was an interesting observation and these commentators didn't seem to have a problem with it. But I have heard them opined before about corporate CEOs who are given a golden parachute. They have become outraged that someone who is not performing to expectations could be given tens of millions of dollars in severance pay. That's exactly what Phil is doing, protecting his "golden parachute". Once again it seems that when it comes to celebrities in the sports or movie world, those with liberal tendencies cut them a lot of slack and hold corporate executives to a different standard.

I was listening to a comedy channel on XM radio and the show that was on was basically a talk show. Touching a little bit on various topics including comedians but also political satire. The host said something about midgets. A guest berated him for using the word midget because that's not politically correct and is offensive to midgets. But Ralphie May, a well-known comedian, has a great take on midgets or rather the word midget. He says that the politically acceptable term of "little people" is too broad and not specific enough. If you say "little people", you could be talking about a kid or a short person. Maybe you are talking about a dwarf or a midget but how can you be sure? When you say "midget" everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. Plus midgets are grown people that said that the little kids table at Thanksgiving patient with the adults. The little people, the kids, said that the Broken down card table in the living room. I just thought it was a good point.

You really have to be biased and close minded or unbelievably ignorant to think that the mainstream media is treating Pres. Trump fairly and what stories they report. Earlier this week Pres. Trump held a meeting with the presidents of a number of traditionally black universities and colleges. He wanted to get their input on what needs to be done to help more minority children attend college, if they want to. He also discussed increasing the availability of financial aid for anyone wanting to attend trade schools as well. A picture of the group in the oval office was released. Instead of talking about the important things discussed in the meeting, the press picked up on the fact that Kelly Anne Conway was sitting on the couch with her legs folded underneath her. The media felt it was more important to point out that she was disrespecting the office rather than the discussion taking place between Pres. Trump and the university presidents. And once again the group that met with Pres. Trump was very complementary not only about his ideas but about the fact that he genuinely listen to them and understood their point of view. They are optimistic that not only does he really want to solve problems but he wants them included in the solution. This has happened in virtually every meeting Pres. Trump has held with anyone yet you do not hear that in the mainstream media.

On Tuesday of this week a representative from Congressman Steve Pearce's office was in Silver City to hold their monthly meeting at the Chamber of Commerce. This is a meeting that is generally used for constituents to request help or express opinions in a one-on-one format. Often it is veterans who need assistance in some way shape or form they come to speak to Congressman Pearce's representative. This week a group of people exercise their First Amendment right and formed a protest outside of the building. In some of the emails that were sent to me by the organizers it was inferred and stated in one case that they should force their way into the building and demand to be heard. First of all they would not have had to force their way in as Congressman Steve Pearce will listen to any of his constituents. Secondly the protesters occupied private property without seeking permission from the property owner. But what was really interesting was a conversation I heard later between a participant and one of his acquaintances that did not attend the protest. The nonparticipant was very excited by the turnout and believes that the progressives are regaining the momentum and will really change things back from the destructive actions of Pres. Trump. Just more proof that liberals live in a fantasy world.


Do you know Leland Yee edition

many of you will not remember the name of the US Congressman, a Republican, but many of you will remember his story. I believe he represented the state of Minnesota but I'm not entirely sure. But he was shamed and forced to resign from his office after allegedly soliciting a gay prostitute in an airport bathroom by tapping his foot. There was never any evidence that he actually solicited prostitution and it was never said that he had met with a prostitute. But you will recall that it was all over the news. How many of you know former California State Sen. Leland Yee? Probably not many of you. Yee is in the news this week after being sentenced to prison for violating a number of laws.

Leland has been a fixture in Democratic politics in California since the late 80s. He started out on various boards for the city of San Francisco before rising through the ranks, becoming a state representative and eventually a State Senator. He was your typical Californian liberal Democrat championing various causes such as gun-control, sanctuary cities, environmental issues, and so on. In fact he was at the forefront of trying to ban guns in California. He was also considered to be something of an outsider in that he was not part of the politically corrupt machine that typifies Democrat politics in California. He was getting ready to run for statewide office and had a good chance of succeeding. He likely would have been a future candidate for governor of the state of California.

However in March 2014 federal investigators in the Department of Justice arrested him and charged him with a number of crimes. Keith Jackson, 51, a close associate of Yee was also arrested. The FBI had been investigating organized crime in San Francisco and found a connection between Mr. Yee, Mr. Jackson, and Raymond "shrimp boy" Chow, a notorious gang leader in Chinatown.

As it turns out Mr. Jackson facilitated contact between Raymond and his associates for Leland. Leland would then perform certain political favors in exchange for large campaign donations. He would make a number of calls to help out these associates with legislation or even contracts with state agencies, some of which were dummy contracts set up by the FBI to see whether or not Leland was really participating in a pay for play type scheme or influence peddling.

But the most damning allegation came when Leland facilitated the purchase and importation of illegal weapons into California for distribution to gang members. An undercover agent contacted Leland who said he could purchase guns from the Philippines. After receiving money he conducted the deal and also received campaign contributions for his future political aspirations. Given that Mr. Yee was such a gun control advocate the judge found that his crimes were particularly heinous.

After initially denying culpability, Mr. Yee saw the evidence against him and pled guilty to a number of counts. He was sentenced to five years in prison. But I would bet that most of you have heard nothing or very little about a Democrat politician from the great state of California being found guilty of corruption, influence peddling, and illegal arms smuggling. While not surprising that this story has not been picked up and blared across all of the national media outlets it is still disappointing to see real news being ignored while misleading stories, especially about our president, are being put out hourly by the same media outlets. Is it any wonder that more people are ignoring the traditional mainstream media outlets?


Why? Just why?

I was reading an article about the Niagara Falls. The gist of the article is that the water is eroding the falls, which will eventually become rapids. Now, probably not in our life times but in a generation or two, it could happen. Sounds to me like nature is doing what nature does. But government agencies on both sides of the border are taking a look at how they can stop the erosion to preserve the falls. Why? I'm confused, but then again, it's liberals running the show.

Why are they trying to save Niagara Falls? Is there an environmental reason for doing so? Is there a Snail Darter that would die if the falls disappeared? Maybe a habitat for a rare frog that's only found at the base of the falls. I don't think so. It appears to me that the efforts to save the falls is solely because they want people to be able to come and view the wonder of Niagara Falls. Why would that be? Do they make a lot of money off of park fees and taxes collected from businesses that make their living off of the tourists coming to see the falls? What is one of the undeniable truths of life? Follow the money. I'm betting that's the case here.

But isn't that in direct conflict with what the environmental leftists are doing elsewhere in our country? Of course it is. Think about our own national forest right here in SW New Mexico. The people in charge of the wilderness have decided that we humans are destroying the forest by visiting nature, so they've closed many roads and trails to public access. It's hard to keep up with all the rules but in some places where they allowed roads to remain open, they put in rules that said you cannot drive or park off of the established road or trail. So if you want to get out and hike and there isn't a parking area, you park on the road blocking access for everyone else.

I've even seen cease and desist orders telling private groups, such as hiking or trail riding groups (horses not machines) that they cannot voluntarily maintain trails; clearing trees, rocks or repairing damage done by rain or flowing water. Can't interfere with nature now can we? Except that the Forest Service does all the time, putting out naturally started fires and not allowing grazing or limited logging activities that have been shown to improve the health of the forest. So essentially they are keeping us out in order to let nature run its course without interference from humans; or limited interference at best.

And why? Because we are told that there isn't enough money being collected in the form of usage fees or taxes from ancillary businesses to be able to maintain the forest or facilities. So there you go, follow the money or lack thereof. Shouldn't they be spending money to maintain access to the forest for those of us that own it? The American people would be 'us'.


Random observations; bigotry issue

I think what we're watching right now in the reaction from the left to Donald Trump's presidency and his actions is probably the biggest temper tantrum in history. And the left is pulling out all the stops of their old tactics like calling Trump racist, inexperienced, bumbling, stupid, and so on. Of course the media is helping them that in this endeavor.

What's quite interesting to me is that so many Americans say they do not trust the media; in fact it's probably a big reason Donald Trump got elected because people believe the media was shilling for Hillary Clinton and the establishment in Washington DC. And as both sides of the aisle that distrusts the media although the right side of the aisle tends to have more people distrusting the media and that distrust runs deep. The same can be said regarding their opinions about the political establishment in both parties and our elected officials. But despite this deep distrust of the media and the belief that the media is biased, so many people still believe them when they start screaming think it or racist. You had to know that this is what it was going to look like when Donald Trump got elected, the establishment on both sides of the aisle along with their friends in the media we can do everything they could to delegitimize his presidency and make him look incompetent. They are going to fight tooth and nail to ruling him and make him any effective because he is taking power away from them. It is more incumbent upon us, the average citizen, to not only look a little deeper into the stories we are being told to see if there are accurate but also to hold our politicians accountable. Use those critical thinking skills you might have been taught in school if you are over 30 before you believe what is being reported in any media source.

So we are being told by the politicians in Congress that repeal of Obama care may not happen for a year or more. You know when they say it's not going to happen this year they will kick the can again next year. Part of Donald Trump's plan is to return the insurance market back to the control of the consumer in yes that involves dealing with private insurance companies. Without getting too lost in the details, allowing more competition along with putting the consumer into the equation as the decision-maker will help to bring costs down and get health insurers to react to what people may want. The market can dictate what companies offer you we have seen that over and over throughout history. But I was listening to one individual say we cannot let the health insurance companies have control of the market again. He was saying that they are very inefficient and incapable of doing things well. But if you go back to 20 years ago even 30 years ago most of us were fairly happy with our options regarding our health insurance. And if those companies were so bad at what they did how is it that they got to be so bad, so profitable and so rich. Not to mention that the doctors, hospitals and medical clinics all got rich as well. Was it perfect? Of course not. But some tweaking can make it better and more accessible to the consumer. And it can still be profitable for the insurance companies.

Speaking of kicking the can, Republicans are now saying apparently that they cannot implement the tax reform programs that Donald Trump promised to deliver during the campaign. The first of all we have not heard a Republican say that. We have only been told by the media that an anonymous source that this discussion occurred in the meeting between Congressional Republicans and Donald Trump in Philadelphia. Part of the reason they want to delay cutting taxes is that they do not have enough money to pay for the items in their budget. Once again they have it backwards. What they should be doing is figuring out roughly how much revenue they will receive and then creating a budget that stays within that revenue amount. Even with record tax revenues being collected over the last two years they have not been able to balance the budget because they cannot say no to people. What is also interesting is that so many of the people in Congress right now ran on a platform that included cutting taxes or balancing the budget. Yet none of them have done it. Another perfect example of saying what they think we want to hear and then doing what they're going to do anyway. Again part of the reason that Donald Trump got elected because we are tired of being lied to by career politicians.

I've seen some people post on Facebook or opine on the news programs that Donald Trump complained during the campaign about Pres. Obama's use of executive orders. Obama used them as if he was a reigning monarch. Of course now some work saying that Donald Trump is doing the same exact thing, which he is using executive orders but the way he is using them is more legal and appropriate that what Pres. Obama did. As an example let's look at how both of them dealt with immigration into the United States. Pres. Obama tried to get immigration measures passed through Congress to allow more people in with less screening. His efforts failed miserably including among the members of his own party. So in response Pres. Obama issued an executive order enacting the policies that he could not get passed through Congress. That is the sign of a monarch, or tyrant. Pres. Trump's executive order on immigration however is clarifying how to enforce laws that are already on the books. Current law gives the president of the United States the authority to ban or limit immigration from certain countries if immigrants from that country a threat to the United States and its citizens. So Trump's executive orders are not creating law but clarifying how to handle and enforce existing law.

Of course the media is talking about Trump's ban on immigration from those seven countries and saying it is racist. Once again when you look at the facts that's wrong. But will talk about the specifics of the executive order in another post. But why is it that they scream racism when Islam is not a race? Why is it racist if no one from that country can enter the United States including Christians, atheists, agnostics or people of any race whether they are Arabic or not? This is all about trying to create anger among the electorate and destroy the ability of Donald Trump to govern effectively. It is about power not policy. Because none of these people calling Pres. Trump racist were calling Pres. Obama racist when he did the same thing in 2011. See? That's how you use critical thinking skills.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

So you’re butt hurt about the temporary ban on immigration from certain countries…

I was not paying much attention over the weekend but understand that after Pres. Trump signed an order halting immigration from certain countries, the liberals went berserk once again. I guess there have been protests at airports, I've seen Facebook posts, and hurt a little bit on the radio over the weekend about the opinions of those who oppose Pres. Trump's actions. Once again, the left is using tactics that are tantamount to lying but are designed to create fear in the low information voter and get them to support the liberals agenda even though they probably wouldn't agree with it if they knew all the facts. It is also been another glaring example of the liberals hypocrisy and how they don't support principles but they support people with out thinking about what those people really stand for or want to accomplish.

So let's get a few facts straight; in 2011 or 2012 Pres. Obama received a recommendation from the Central intelligence agency regarding unfettered immigration from Syria and a couple of other Middle Eastern countries. The CIA and other intelligence agencies said it was an absolute certainty that terrorists were being allowed in along with legitimate refugees. Pres. Obama ordered the State Department to suspend all immigration from those countries for a period of six months. That was done and while there were some actions taken to try and screen future refugees, it certainly did not meet the standard recommended by the CIA and others. At the time that Obama instituted this temporary ban, there were no calls of racism or bigotry because of his actions. The left did not say a word about how many people would be left in those war-torn and terrorist areas and would probably die because they would not be allowed to immigrate to the United States. Yet when Pres. Trump does the same thing for a much shorter period of time and with a much shorter list of countries, the left calls him all of those names and more.

We have also heard the comparisons of Pres. Trump's policy to the Holocaust. The left wing nut jobs claim that what Pres. Trump is doing is tantamount to creating camps similar to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps Nazi Germany used to control Jews and other undesirables, ultimately putting them to death. They make comparisons as to how Hitler created fear among the population in Germany creating the circumstances that allowed him to build these concentration camps and carry out his plan. What I don't hear from Pres. Trump is the same rhetoric as to how anyone is subhuman, the cause of all problems in the world, or any of the other descriptions that Adolf Hitler used when talking about Jews and other undesirables. In fact, Trump has said specifically that it is not all citizens of Islamic countries or all Muslims in America. And let me ask you this, where is he building these camps? I haven't seen any construction and I'm certain that the media would be all over it if it was there. And where are the squads of jackbooted thugs running rampant in our neighborhoods grabbing people who are Islamic or even look Islamic? Where are the calls to create registrations and require members of the Islam religion to register with the federal government or any other entity for that matter? It isn't happening.

We have seen terrorist attacks carried out in this and other countries by people who have pretended to be refugees and have utilized the systems put in place to enter a foreign country and commit atrocities. Doesn't it make sense to try and screen out as many people that might be threats to our children, to our loved ones, to our fellow citizens? No system is perfect and we will not be able to keep all of the bad people out but the harder we make it for them to get in the less likely it is that we will have more terrorist attacks on our soil. Just look at what is happening in Germany, Sweden, Greece and other European countries that allowed tens of thousands of refugees in without any sort of screening. They are regretting that action and are taking more severe steps to rectify the problems that resulted then we would as a country. Yet, once again the left wing is silent because the majority of governments in those countries are socialist and far be it for a liberal to criticize a socialist government for anything.

But let me ask you this, how many of you own property that you rent to others? Are you a landlord of anyway or have you ever rented from someone? If your landlord and you want to rent your home or apartment or whatever it may be, you put an ad in the paper or advertised in some way. When someone answers the ad do you just give them the keys and say the rent is $600 a month due on the first have a good time? Or do you ask them to fill out an application and check their references or rental history? Of course you do and if you have been a tenant you know you have to fill out an application giving the potential landlord some information that helps them verify you will be a good tenant, that is you'll pay the rent on time and will destroy their property.

And let's take it a little closer to home. How many of you have locks on the exterior doors to your home or apartment? How many of you have burglar alarms or other security systems to help protect your property and your loved ones? Why do you have those? Why aren't you letting just anyone who wants to come into your home enter and do whatever they like. Certainly if you had that type of open invitation you would get people who would come in and sit down and watch TV and not do any harm to you, your family, or your property. But there would be people who would come in and harm you or still your stuff. They would abuse your generosity. And when you invite guests to come to your home you expect them to behave in a certain manner that is acceptable to you. Maybe you don't want them to drink and get rowdy or to do drugs in your home. Maybe you want them to be respectful of your personal beliefs as well as your property. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But you see these are the same exact things we are trying to do with our immigration policy. We are just trying to make sure, as sure as we possibly can within reason, that the people we are inviting into our country will not do us harm and will assimilate to our core values and expectations of behavior in our society. You don't do that by just opening the door and letting everyone in that wants to come in.

Pres. Trump span on immigration from specific countries is limited to those that are known to have the highest concentration of terrorist groups and are the most active in trying to send terrorists to other countries. I believe the band lists nine total countries but does not list 46 other countries whose societies and government are based upon Islamic religion. Yet to listen to them liberal media and the protesters, you might believe that he is banned all Muslims from entering this country. That is absolutely untrue. But hey, what's a liberal to do these days when they aren't in control? They will scream and cry loudly.


Back with some random thoughts and observations

it was unintentional but we have not posted for a while for a lot of reasons. But we are back after having some time to drive around Southwest New Mexico contemplate what I was hearing on the radio and come up with some observations and of course opinions.

I listened to a good portion of Obama's final press conference (Yahoo!) And it is very clear that he lives in a fantasy world. All of his comments about how great the economy is how much better America is because of him being president and all that egotistical bull crap that he likes to spout about himself. One thing that was very clear is that the press representatives in the room idolize him and never asked him tough questions about the deficit, the increase in terrorism, or any of the reality that we live with every day. But one thing struck me more than everything else about his statements; that was his claim that race relations in America are so much better now than when he took office. Of course he said there is some work to do but things are so much better and he is so hopeful because among our young people they are much more tolerant and understanding and less likely to judge people based upon the color of their skin or some other demographic characteristic. What a load of crap. How many times have we seen college students hold a rally to keep white people from entering certain areas? How many safe zones do we have in college campuses where you cannot say the word Trump or other words that might be offensive to their little ears? There are places where white kids are not allowed so that black kids or those practicing the Islamic religion can go to be by themselves, heaven forbid that one of the excluded groups enters their safe space, that person is likely to be verbally assaulted if not physically assaulted. We can go on with the examples of the tolerance that our young people are showing in the acceptance of others, damn I need a sarcasm font. We are raising some of the most intolerant kids because of what they are being taught in college and for president Obama to say anything else means he is totally ignorant or is a liar. Hell, he might even be both.

Mark Lamont Hill is a professor at some school teaching race history or tolerance or something like that. He's probably one of those people responsible for safe places where black kids can go and not be exposed to white people. But he's making news because of what he said about comedian and television host, Steve Harvey. Harvey is an activist in addition to his professional gigs. He often talks about issues facing black communities. He was invited to meet with Donald Trump this week and like other black activists who have met with Mr. Trump, he came away believing that the president elect is serious about addressing the issues facing many of our inner city citizens. Mr. Hill is not impressed with Steve Harvey, Jim Brown, Ray Lewis, or any of the other black activists who have met with Donald Trump. Mr. Hill says that Steve Harvey is a "mediocre Negro". He states that Harvey is not really an activist for his race, especially because he is successful and is thus not a good example of what black people face in this world. In fact he doesn't like any of the successful black people talking about race issues that face the average black person in America, according to Mr. Hill. Never mind that many of these successful black Americans came from impoverished backgrounds; never mind that they overcame many of the obstacles that Mr. Hill claims to be an expert on, never mind that their experiences could serve as a shining example for everyone, not just black youth. But can you imagine if a conservative or a white person used the phrase "mediocre Negro"? There would because for that person to be strung up from the nearest tree, for them to lose everything that they had ever built or gained or earned, and for them to be banished from public life forever. Maybe Mr. Hill should get out in the real world and try to understand that you do not have to be a professor to be a leader in any movement, that practical experience can make you a leader in your community.

I have a new definition for Metro sexual: gay in the streets, straight in the sheets.

I listened to portions of the four confirmation hearings being conducted by the Senate this week. Nikki Haley is the nominee for ambassador to the United Nations. One of the Senators, and I did not catch his name as I came in to the hearing midstream, was asking how ambassadors select Haley thought the United States should deal with the United Nations. The gist of the overly long question was did Nikki Haley believe that the United States should pull out of the United Nations altogether? Mrs. Haley said that there were certainly grave concerns about the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations as currently formed. She also expressed concerns about the fact that the United States pays approximately one quarter of the operating budget for the United Nations, yet that the body continually works against the best interest of the United States and its allies. I thought it was interesting to note that we are still the primary funding nation for the United Nations. When Obama took office he said that the United States cannot be the sole leader of the world that we must take our "rightful place" alongside the other nations of the world rather than out front. So wouldn't that mean that every nation that is a member of the United Nations should be paying their fair share of the operating costs? Yet not one nation even comes close to supporting the United Nations monetarily compared to what the United States pays. Shouldn't Russia, England, France, or Germany be paying as much as we are?

I was listening to some of the Democrats in the Senate question Dr. Tom Price, president elect Trump's nominee for health and human services director, and they were talking about the repeal of Obamacare. One of the Senators asked if the plan that would be put forth to replace Obama care would insure or guarantee that all Americans would have insurance coverage. She opined that any replacement for the current affordable care act would leave so many Americans out in the cold without access to healthcare. First of all, there is no problem with anyone having access to healthcare. It is typical of the liberals to skew the argument to make it seem like people are going to die if the current plan is scrapped. The simple fact is that Obama care and any other similar program is not about healthcare but paying for healthcare. That aside, if making sure that all Americans have coverage is a goal for the Democrats then why do so many Americans not have coverage now? How is it that the affordable care act that they authored and shoved down our throats took health insurance away from so many American people but yet they demand that any replacement cover everyone? There must be some kind of device that removes all principles, ability to detect hypocrisy, or somebody's ability to tell the truth when they enter Congress.

So if Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden because they ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, was it God's goal or wish that man remain ignorant and half naked?

If Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb? A friend tells me I'm going straight to HE double toothpicks for that one.

Have you ever noticed that the symbol doctors use for their profession is a snake on a stick? How did they come up with that? If you saw someone coming at you with a snake wrapped around a stick how would you react? Would you be all happy and saying, gave the doctors here? Or would you be like get the hell away from you with that snake on a stick you crazy moron? Shouldn't a snake wrapped around a stick be the symbol for lawyers?