Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico



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.


Stupid criminals – local edition

normally we have to go to the South for our stupid criminal stories, especially Florida which is a gold mine of stupid people. But every now and then something happens locally that just really exemplifies not only how much our public education system is failing our kids and not teaching them how to think critically, but also gives us a chuckle. And very often we can identify with some of the people and the situations they find themselves in and how they react.

I was reading this story in a local fish wrap, it concerned a baby daddy and the baby mama's new boyfriend or husband. According to the story, baby daddy was visiting baby mama and their children. I would assume that one of the younger children used a curse word because baby daddy and new boyfriend began arguing about whether or not children of that age should be using curse words. It certainly is a discussion I would want to have with the new boyfriend had I been in that situation. Again the story is not clear but I assume that baby daddy did not want his children cursing and new boyfriend didn't think it was a big deal.

So how would you deal with it if you were at an impasse with new boyfriend? Walk away or maybe take your kids aside and tell them why it's not good to use those words and encourage them to not learn from new boyfriend? Based upon baby daddies next action, I assume that the disagreement with new boyfriend was more about the fact that he is in the house with baby mama and their children rather than baby daddy being there.

Baby daddy's next step was to pull a gun and pointed at her new boyfriend. One thing I don't think you should ever do when someone is pointing a gun at you, especially if the situation is heated, is asked the question, "what, are you going to shoot me?" That's an invitation for baby daddy to pull the trigger and prove his manhood. Which happened, with the bullet striking new boyfriend in the leg. Now I have to think that cursing is a much more desirable trait to have in young children as opposed to showing them how to handle conflict by pulling a gun and shooting the other person. But that's just me.

And when as with many of the stories that we've done over the years, it does not end there. Baby mama realizes that new boyfriend has been shot in the leg, grabs a couple of the little kids and new boyfriend, puts them in the car and drives him to a bar. Yes it was a closed bar, but a bar nonetheless. Because that is where I would think about taking someone who has been shot, even if it was to be able to meet the ambulance and/or officers of the law. And what about the other kids that she left at the house with baby daddy who was by now realizing that he made a mistake and could be going to jail or prison?

Fortunately the Oakland police were not involved in the training and the situation, and baby daddy had apparently left the residence before police arrived. Think certainly could have gotten out of hand and we are grateful for that, no doubt about it.

Filed under: Funny Stuff No Comments

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

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.


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