Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico


Are you sure you want unfettered immigration?

Atty. Gen. Jeff sessions was in Nogales Arizona this week making a statement about the administrations stance on illegal immigration. Of course the left wing and many in the media, which are the same I know, said that the policies being implemented by a Trump administration racist and inhumane. Again they obfuscate the facts in order to create an emotional reaction in the low information voter with the intent of returning themselves to power rather than having a legitimate debate about our immigration policy.

We should make it very clear that the conservative position which is essentially the same position that Pres. Trump has taken, is that we want to be able to control who comes to America for the purposes of trying to weed out as many bad people as we can. Whether they be terrorists or criminals doesn't matter. We know that many countries in Central America for example have released their prison populations and given them assistance in trying to get to the United States, crossing our border illegally. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Neither can it be denied that some of the people coming across illegally, from any country, are here with the sole intent of improving their lives. Our position is that we want to help more of them, those who want to a better their lives, come here legally. To that end, there needs to be a change in how legal immigration is handled by this country. But until that is done, we can't continue to allow unfettered illegal immigration. All we have to do is look at history to tell us that things will not happen.

All over Europe, countries who have taken the "refugees" with little or no venting, from the middle eastern countries, are re-thinking those policies. The vast majority of refugees coming from the middle east are not assimilating into the cultures of the countries where they now live. In fact they are doing everything they can to change the cultures of those countries to match their belief systems. Often they are using violence to achieve that goal. It is not hard to find the stories because they are very prominent in the European media outlets, at least many of them. The left in this country will ignore those realities as they argue with Pres. Trump about his immigration stance.

Very often one of the arguments the left uses is that not all Muslims are violent jihadists. That is true, but one of the arguments that the conservatives have stated is that the so-called moderate Muslims are not speaking out against the radical set of their religion that promotes violence against all nonbelievers. All we have to do is look at what happened in Sweden recently to give us the most recent example of how the moderate Muslims are not part of the solution. Now we can argue about whether or not there are really moderate Muslims who do not share the belief system of the radical sect of Islam or whether all Muslims share their views but just do not participate in the violence. For the purposes of this discussion, we are going to assume that there are moderate Muslims in the world.

After the recent attack in which a Muslim man drove a vehicle into a crowd and killed a number of Swedish citizens, there was a candlelight vigil held to show support for the families of the deceased. A reporter from CNN attended the event to see for herself whether or not moderate Muslims would actually attend the peaceful vigil. After she wrote her article she was being interviewed on CNN about what she did see. She admitted that she attended the event expecting to see some percentage of the crowd, which she estimated at between 20 to 25,000 people, representing the Islamic faith. She admitted that she wanted to refute the narrative from the right that moderate Muslims are sitting on the sidelines.

What she said she found was quite different than what she expected. She and her crew, along with reporters from other entities, roamed through the crowd for quite a while, both before, during, and after the vigil. She said that if there were any attendees that practiced the Islamic faith, none of them could find any. They all agreed that the crowd was quite homogenous, essentially being made up of white skinned and blonde haired Swedish citizens. There was very little diversity in the crowd that she or her colleagues observed.

She went on to say that there are now to Sweden's: at least around Stockholm, which she said the main city is still populated primarily by Swedish, natural born, citizens and the suburbs which are made up primarily of Islamic refugees. Those suburbs do not reflect Swedish society in any way shape or form. Those neighborhoods have been converted to Islamic conclaves. In fact, the Swedish Postal Service recently announced that they will no longer deliver mail to those neighborhoods because of the violence committed against their postal workers. she said she was disappointed to confirm what many on the right side of the aisle have been saying about unfettered immigration from middle eastern countries. She of course still believes that engagement with these communities would solve the problem but is not as firm in that belief as she was before.

Of course her experience with that vigil is just one of many examples that we can point to in almost any country in the world that has accepted Islamic refugees. Their experiences have been extremely similar and not in a good way. It's nice to be idealistic but you must also be realistic and realize that not everything will go the way you wanted to know matter how hard you try. Pres. Trump's immigration policies are the right thing to do. They are not bigoted or racist in any way shape or form because it will apply to every country whether it be Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or any other demographic characteristic you want to identify. And I think deep down, even opponents will agree, if they are open-minded and well-informed, that these policies are the right policies to adopt. You will

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments


Sometimes you see something and you have an initial reaction in which you are dismissive of the situation or support it of what is going on: then after a bit of reflection you’re not quite so sure how you really feel about what people are doing. After the terrorist used the vehicle to drive through a crowd of bread to kill people in England, the reaction of many Brits was interesting and I found myself at first dismissive of what many were doing but now I’m not so sure.

Of course after the attack, there was the typical discussion about whether or not radical Islam was to blame and the left of course accused the right wing updating all Muslims and being intolerant. So what many people started doing was walking across that bridge, riding the subway, or walking through predominantly Islamic neighborhoods in London. They would take a selfie with their phone and put the hashtag, “I am not afraid”. Now I agree with the idea that in the face of such heinous attacks we have to stand up strongly in defiance of what the terrorists are trying to do to our society. But I think I’ve grown so tired of the selfie and hashtags that my initial reaction was somewhat dismissive of what these people were doing.

To some extent walking across the bridge and/or taking the subway right after a terrorist attack is not a very brave action. In those areas where the attack occurred or might occur, there is increased security and a heightened awareness of potential threats. So it really doesn’t take much to go to those areas because you are probably going to be safer there than in other parts of the city.

But there is some value in symbolism and sending a message to the terrorists that essentially says you are not going to change the way I live my life and you are not going to scare me into being subservient to your demands.

But you put these two acts together with walking through Islamic neighborhoods and aren’t the left wing admitting to some extent that it is Islamic-based terrorism? Remember the left wing tells us that this is not a philosophy based in the Muslim religion, despite the facts that tell us otherwise. When the conservatives say that we must battle the philosophy of radical Islam in order to be successful in this terrorism war, we do not condemn all Muslims. Only those that believe in the radical form of jihad that drives these insane acts. It’s the left wing that wants to put everybody that shares a demographic characteristic into the same category.

So by saying that they are not afraid to walk through an Islamic neighborhood they are tacitly admitting that Islam is the problem; otherwise why engage in the “brave act” of walking through an Islamic neighborhood? It’s because you inherently know that at least part of that population wants to kill you because you are different yet when it becomes time for you to admit that and take action based upon that fact, the left wing cannot and will not admit the truth.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

To whom does the President owe an obligation?

I’m not 100% sure to which radio show I was listening, I think it was Neil Cavuto, but as usual I was getting back in the truck after visiting with a client and came in to the middle of the interview. The gist of the conversation for the two guests on the show, one a conservative one liberal, was to rate the job Pres. Trump has been doing. At the time I came into the program to liberal was discussing the differences between governing and being the CEO of the business. She of course was taking the position that the two are vastly different endeavors and skills learned as a CEO do not translate to governing. She could be more wrong, but not by much.

Was she made several points how the two positions are different let’s start with the idea that the president is not a CEO. At this point she really couldn’t be more wrong. A president is a CEO with duties and responsibilities that are extremely similar to that of the president of a private corporation or a public corporation for that matter. The president of the United States is tasked with the day-to-day operations of the government. The legislative branch sets the parameters by passing a budget, laws etc. in the president has to conduct business within those parameters. He has to carry out the tasks given to him by the legislative branch and within the confines or limitations outlined by the judicial branch. That is exactly what the CEO of a corporation does. He or she carries out the day-to-day operations in accordance with the overall budget and plan as outlined by the CEO and approved by the Board of Directors. The skills are identical.

This pundit went on to say that unlike a CEO the president has several entities to which he is beholden and that he has to satisfy: that being the legislative and judicial branches, as well as the citizens of the United States, and in her opinion, the fourth estate also known as the media. She said that the CEO of a corporation doesn’t have to answer to multiple bodies or have code equals with whom the CEO must share power and control. There is a modicum of truth to that statement but again it shows her ignorance of what a CEO really has to deal with, or she is playing politics with the low information voters by misrepresenting what a CEO has to do.

The CEO has to answer to a body of stockholders. Certainly they do not have the power that the legislative branch does but they can vote in essence by increasing or decreasing the stock price based upon the performance of the CEO and how the company is performing compared to expectations. They also have the right to vote at annual meetings which can result in changes in policy very similar to changing the policies a president must follow.

The CEO must also answer to a board of directors who will set the tone for the direction of the company but with a great deal of input from the CEO and his or her administrative staff. Very similar to what a president does with the legislative branch. And similar to what a judicial body does, the Board of Directors can tell the CEO that he is out of bounds in the way he is running the company.

Just like a president, a CEO has to play nice with a lot of people. It’s called politics both in the government and in the corporate world. You have to negotiate, you have to cajole, you have to convince people that your policies or the way you want to run the company are the right way to go. You have to get them on board and buy into your plan so that you can succeed in your position.

And let’s get to this obligation to the fourth estate that she spoke of. The president has absolutely no obligation to the media. The president does not have to answer to the media or share power with the media in the way that he does with the other branches of government. Certainly his job will be easier if the media is favorable towards him because of the way he interacts with them and the access which he gives them not to mention whether or not they agree with his policies. But to say that there is an obligation to include the media in the decision-making processes is unbelievably moronic. The media only has power because they control the way information is disseminated and they can taint the information to serve their purposes. This of course can affect how the citizens vote, whether or not to retain the president. But that’s part of the problem, I believe the media is convinced in general that they are truly the governing body and they can control what happens or doesn’t happen in the legislative and governing process.

Her comments also show the arrogance that is pervasive within the media community. What I think Donald Trump is good at, almost as good as Ronald Reagan, is bypassing the media and going directly to the American people in an attempt to ensure that the truth as he sees it gets to the American people. Whether you agree with Donald Trump or any president for that matter and how that person conducts themselves, having access to more information can only be a good thing. As we have seen in the past, the media is not honest with the American people and how they report upon stories. And that is probably what has the media more upset and acting like a petulant child.

Filed under: Philosophy 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


Poor little snowflakes

our society is not doing a very good job of raising our children. Now this is a complicated issue that I'm going to blame parents not necessarily for doing the wrong thing in their day to day lives in raising their kids but allowing the government and especially our schools to not only indoctrinate our children but to raise a generation, probably multiple generations, of children who are afraid to do anything because they might get hurt: whether that be physically or emotionally.

Gold Ridge elementary school in Folsom, California is just the latest in a very long string of schools that is molly coddling our children. The school's principal sent home a letter recently telling parents that children will no longer be allowed to play tag on school time or property. So when recess comes around any child being caught playing tag will be disciplined; I'm sure that discipline will escalate each subsequent time a child is caught playing this dangerous game. And that's exactly the reason for them banning the game of tag from school grounds. It's too dangerous and children get hurt.

This comes not too long after the same school band touch football because, once again, children could get hurt. It's a dangerous dangerous game that could result not only in physical harm to children but if there are children who are not as physically gifted as others they can suffer emotional trauma as well. Maybe it's because they are getting picked last or maybe it's because they aren't given the football to run or throw or catch. What? Do they not have safe spaces?

So now what we are telling kids is that they should go back to their cell phones and play video games, text their friends, or search for Pokémon. What happened to the way we were raised? Is it any wonder that kids today are physically inept and more sickly than they used to be? Teachers used to tell us to go rub some dirt on it and get back in there. Sometimes it was a significant injury and they took us to the nurse but nobody freaked out over it by telling everyone else that you cannot play because one little snowflake got hurt.

I remember a time in elementary school, I think I was in the fourth grade and our outdoor basketball courts were built on a slope. That meant that one and had to be built up about 2 1/2 to 3 feet in order to make it level. One day I ran to Harvard and as I was about to fall off the raised and, I grabbed the pole that held the backboard it spun me around and as I fell I scratched my stomach from the belt line all the way up my chest. It was a nice scrape but there was really no bleeding. I do remember kind of losing my breath. The teacher on duty at the time came over pulled up my shirt saw that it was no big deal and told me to go back to playing basketball. When I got home I showed my mom and she had no problem with how it was handled. I'm sure many of you had similar situations that were dealt with the same way and guess what the world did not end.


Monday Morning Funnies – Upset liberal parents edition

liberal parents seem to take a lot more pride in how they raise their children as opposed to conservative parents. This certainly does not mean that conservative parents don't care about their children, quite the contrary, I think we raise more well-rounded children and children that are better prepared to deal with a life and become productive members of society. But liberal parents, like so many other things in their lives, are much more vocal about how they raise their children and seem to brag about little things more than anybody else. So I was interested in this story that was related to me by an acquaintance. I think it is typical of liberal parenting and the indoctrination they put their kids through.

This gentleman is a conservative and was outside one evening this past week when his neighbors, who are Uber liberals, want to buy with their young daughter, who is probably around eight years old. Apparently the conversation turned to a recent career fair at her school and this gentleman asked the young girl what she would like to be when she grew up. The girl replied, "I want to be president of the United States". The gentleman replied that that was very laudable and asked what she would do if she were president. The girl replied, "I would give all the homeless people some money and a house so they wouldn't have to be poor and homeless anymore." Of course the liberal parents beamed with pride at their daughters plans knowing that they had raised her "right".

My acquaintance told her that she did not have to wait and should tell she was president to begin working on her goal of curing homelessness. The girl wondered how she could begin now. The gentleman said you can come over and mow my lawn, pull some weeds and trim the hedges every week and I would give you $50, then you can take that $50 down and give it to a homeless person so they can buy some food and other things. The girls hundred this for a moment and said well, why doesn't the homeless person come work for you and you give them the $50 directly? My friend responded, "welcome to the Republican Party." The liberal parents were very upset and haven't spoken to my acquaintance since then. I'm sure that young lady is being told what a mean person he is and how homeless people cannot be expected to fend for themselves.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Rotary Int. Says “No guns” to local clubs

I have long held a positive opinion of the service club, Rotary international. While I have not been a member, over the years I have been asked to speak to several local clubs and have participated in many fundraisers sponsored by Rotary. Given the recent proclamation by the governing body regarding guns and gun shows or similar events, I will be rethinking my future support of this organization.

The international ruling body for Rotary promulgated new regulations for their 35,000 clubs and 1.2 million members prohibiting them from partnering with or cobranding with or accepting sponsorships from gun companies. Further they warned all local clubs against hosting gun shows, gun sporting events, hunts, or gun raffles. All of these types of events have been big fundraisers for many of the member organizations.

“The RI Board would not take kindly upon knowing that Rotary clubs are sponsoring or hosting gun and knife shows or that the clubs are hosting or sponsoring shooting tournaments and hunts. We would appreciate your assistance in passing on this information to the clubs in your areas and, if you would, ask any clubs that may already be sponsoring or hosting gun/knife shows, shooting tournaments and/or hunts to cease such activity,” read one notice.

it seems that the Rotary international board has decided that guns are the cause of violence not only in America but around the world. To be associated with guns in any way shape or form they feel hurts their brand and their image and promotes violence. Now a number of clubs protested the decision and the board has said they will review their stance in the near future. In the interim clubs are allowed to continue with any plan activities or sponsorships that were banned by the order. However, to me the fact that they would consider this given how much money they raise through these activities and how many of their members are peaceful gun owning Americans, tells me that maybe Rotary is being run by people who have philosophical differences with the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution. It makes you wonder to some extent who they are supporting with their humanitarian efforts in other areas of the world.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

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?


This is where we are going as a nation… if we don’t stop it

Donald Trump was elected and the Democrats lost so many seats at the national, state, and local levels because American citizens are tired of the direction our political elite on both sides of the aisle have been taking us. Now let me say that this direction has been driven by the Democrats at the national level with help of the liberals in the media and academia. The Republicans at the national level have gone along with what the Democrats want because so often the Democrats a better than the ones in charge. They have abrogated their duty to stand up for their principles and work against programs that they believed would hurt America in the long run. That said primarily because we have let the liberals run our education system at all levels we have become a nation that does not represent the principles upon which we were founded.

Over the weekend I was listening to a program on ESPN radio entitled The Morning Roast. It is a relatively new program on Sunday mornings and I'm not entirely sure who the hosts of the program are as I have not listened very often. But as I was driving to the tennis court on Sunday morning I was listening to their discussion about Jamies Winston's speech to a group of middle school kids. Winston is the quarterback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and is no stranger to controversy related to his actions, especially while in college. He has really matured after getting into the NFL but during his speech to the middle school kids he said some things that had the liberals open arms. Most of the controversy centers around Winston's comments about how kids should act, including saying something to the effect that women should be essentially demure. A lot of women and liberals took that to mean that they should be seen and not heard or that they should be in the background, at home baking cookies and having kids. I have heard part of the comments and I did not take it that way but of course the liberals will jump all over anything they can to create outrage.

But the hosts of this particular show took it in a different direction. The just of Winston speech to these kids is that you can be anything you want to be in America if you get an education and work hard. Isn't that the message that we as a country have tried to spread throughout our history? Don't we have so many examples of people achieving success after coming to this country? We have so many examples of children who have exceeded the success that their parents had because they work hard because they got an education. Doesn't mean that everyone is successful? Of course not. But in America you have the opportunity to try. But apparently this offended the hosts in the guest on The Morning Roast.

The people on this morning show said that it's not true; you cannot be whatever you want to be in America. The guest is a former NFL football player. He said that during his career he gave a similar presentation to a group of middle school kids. One boy came up to him and this gentleman asked the young man what he wanted to be when he grew up. The young boy said, "I want to play in the NFL." this gentleman said that it was clear to him there was no way this young boy was ever going to play any sport professionally much less football. He said the boy was undersized, appeared to be uncoordinated and did not exhibit any of the physical characteristics that you would see in a professional athlete. The hosts agreed that it was unkind to tell this young boy to work and try and achieve his dream. They opined that it would be better to tell him not to work hard at being a professional athlete but to find something else.

In fact to tell anyone in this country that they can be anything they want is mean and can cause permanent emotional damage. First of all not everyone can achieve the goal that they have set for themselves and secondly they inferred that we are a bigoted country who will keep certain minority groups from achieving success in their chosen areas of endeavor. So instead of telling children that they can be whatever they want to be, instead of telling them about the importance of education is a strong foundation for achieving their goals, these three people said that it would be more important and more constructive to tell these children to be nice people. Especially when it comes to how they treat women. In fact the female host said that the message should be to elevate women, put them first and if you're competing with women when not consider letting them achieve their goal first. The male cohost and guest agreed with her to a large extent.

what is wrong with telling people that they can achieve anything if they work hard and get an education. We also teach them at the same time how to deal with failure or how to adapt when things aren't going the way they want them to. How many times have we seen the story of a successful athlete who was not quite so successful as a youngster. Remember Michael Jordan was cut from his junior high basketball team. According to these hosts Michael Jordan should have been discouraged from continuing to pursue his dream of playing basketball in college and the NBA. He should have been told to do something else. Maybe George Washington Carver should have been told that he could not pursue a career in science because of the color of his skin and the atmosphere in the South at the time. Marie Curie should have been told the same thing.

Can you imagine what our world would be like if all of the people who overcame significant obstacles to achieve their dreams were not there as examples for the rest of us? Can you imagine what this world would have been like without all of the successes that Carver and Curie had? how many people in each of your lives do you know that have overcome obstacles to achieve some level of success? Think about the first person in your family's to attend college or to buy their first house. We have to dream bid we have to work hard to try and achieve what we want to achieve no matter how difficult it may seem at the time. We do not move forward as individuals or a society without this attitude.

But to the liberals not only is it mean to tell people who might not succeed to continue trying but they also think that we shouldn't have people who are more successful than others no matter what the endeavor. Liberals look at people and see what they can't do and worry more about their feelings. Conservatives look at people and see what they can achieve and want to teach them how to deal with adversity. We want to encourage them to pursue their dreams even if it may be unlikely. That is one of the fundamental differences between conservatism and liberalism. If the liberals had created this country we would never have achieved all that this country has become. Yes we have warts in our history and yes we have to strive to be better as a society but we are still the greatest country that has ever lived on the face of this earth. The liberals over the last four years are trying to take us backwards and unfortunately there are way too many examples of where they have succeeded.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments