Power To The People


What’s The Deal?

Despite the fact that the Obama administration has been working on a deal with Iran for some time now, all anyone outside of the administration seems to know about the deal is that it isn’t shaping up to end well for the U.S. or the rest of the Western World.

About all we have to go by are rumors, speculation, and the administration’s word that the negotiations are going well.  And the really sad thing is that they all lead to the same conclusion, when you think it through.

It’s really quite confusing why the administration would demand such secrecy, until you look at their extreme penchant for secrecy in all things, big or small.

They wrote Obamacare to be intentionally confusing in an effort to hoodwink as many people as possible into thinking it was a good idea.  Since they started implementing the law, each and every promise made about the Affordable Care Act has proven untrue.

They used the IRS to discriminate against conservative groups, then attempted to destroy evidence.  To date, there has been no serious investigation into the possibility of criminal behavior at the IRS.

They have changed how they count they numbers of illegal alien apprehensions to make it seem like they’re doing more to secure the border than they actually are.

They kept the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” rules secret until after they had been voted on, while giving a constant stream of propaganda about how great the new regulations would be.

They continue to hide the facts about what really went on the night of the 9/11 Benghazi attack.


So when the Obama administration tells us we can trust them to do the right thing, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they aren’t doing the right thing.

The administration – including both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry – came down hard on Congress for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a speech before a joint session earlier this month.  The White House voiced their concern that Republicans were trying to influence Israel’s elections (even as Obama campaign operatives were working behind the scenes in Israel in an attempt to sway the election the other way).  And even after the Prime Minister delivered a speech urging President Obama to take a tougher stance with Iran, not only for the future of Israel, but for the entire West, they insisted that it was all about the election.

They have been extremely critical of a group of 47 U.S. Senators who published an open letter to Iran stating that any agreement would have to be approved by the Senate in order to be legally binding in the U.S.  This was in reaction to President Obama’s earlier statements about how he would be pursuing an agreement without Senate approval – a move that a little thing called the Constitution would basically render meaningless as soon as President Obama leaves office.

According to the President, the Secretary of State, and various other Democrats, these 47 Republican Senators were seeking “common cause” with Iran’s hard-liners…though the only way that makes any sense is if the president was planning on making a non-legally binding agreement with Iran, but was planning to pull the rug out from under them later.

But by all appearances, the Democrats are going for more of a “peace in our time” strategy.  It looks like they are already making some big concessions – Iran and Hezbollah (one of many terrorist groups Iran supports) have been removed from the 2015 report on national security threats, despite the fact that Iran remains one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism.

This deal with Iran is shaping up to be all too similar to our previous deals with North Korea, which ultimately resulted in an insane, tyrannical regime getting nuclear weapons.  The last thing we need is for another Democrat president to allow yet another crazy tyrannical regime to get nuclear weapons – this one with ties to all sorts of terror groups.

Keeping Hillary Straight

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

Another day, another Clinton scandal. It is questionable whether the slimiest couple in American politics can ever be trusted to do anything honestly, and Hillary’s email scandal is no exception.

It isn’t really a shock that Hillary used her own email server to conduct official State Department business. It’s also no surprise that, asseveral news outlets have reported, some of Hillary’s top aides used the private email server, as well. What is surprising is that anyone in the Clinton camp thought that America would buy Hillary’s excuse that she used a home-baked email server simply as a matter of “convenience.”

This is what Hillary claimed in her press conference, where she laid on the big spin:

“First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.”

Now, there are thousands – perhaps even millions – of Americans who carry two phones with them every day – one for work, and another for personal use. Sometimes it’s for security reasons, other times it’s simply because companies provide a phone for business use. In the government, it’s mostly for security. Government employees are typically issued Blackberry devices meant to make calls and send emails over encrypted connections. The technology isn’t always perfect, but it’s much, much better than BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), which would allow sensitive government data to be transmitted over any number of non-secure networks.

If the “convenience” excuse wouldn’t work for some mid-level bureaucrat, who would be fired for much, much less than what Hillary did, how much worse is it that it was the cabinet-level Secretary of State doing all of this? And if running two devices is too arduous a task for Hillary Clinton, why would anyone think she would be qualified to run the United States government? If she was too lazy to take her role as Secretary of State seriously, then why even take the job?

Continue reading here.

America: A 4-Letter Word

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

A couple of weeks ago, the student government at the University of California, Irvine voted to ban the display of the American flag – and the flag of any other nation – in the lobby of the Associate Student main lobby, which they refer to as an “inclusive space.”

While the measure ultimately applied to all flags, great pains were taken to single out the American flag as a symbol of “colonialism and imperialism,” which they apparently felt would mar the space’s “inclusivity.”

The resolution was inherently ridiculous and self-contradictory, and in many ways represents a mindset that is becoming all too common in modern America: if someone, somewhere, might at some time find something to be insensitive or offensive, then that thing, in all of its forms, must be banned. The measure even, towards the end, refers to Freedom of Speech as “a valued right,” but then in the next statement says that “Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech, Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.” In other words, freedom of speech is a valued right, but it will not exist in the Associated Students main lobby space at UC Irvine.

After the resolution was passed, it didn’t take long for it to gain national attention, and in the face of overwhelming public outcry, the student government’s executive cabinet met and vetoed the measure.

While the resolution went on at length about the symbolism of flags and how different people will have differing interpretations of that symbolism, the resolution itself is a symbol of how our education system is failing our nation. After all, America didn’t start a system of government-funded compulsory schooling solely to teach children how to read, write, and do math (which themselves are done too poorly at too many American schools), but schools were also to teach children how to be good citizens. There is an element of ideological indoctrination in any government-run school system, and it seems that all too often these days, the ideology pushed in our schools is meant to benefit the government itself, and not the people that government is supposed to be of, by, and for.

Continue reading here.

The Not-So-Neutral Net

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

In a matter of hours, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be voting to implement unprecedented regulatory authority over the Internet. What started out as a debate over a simple law that would prevent Internet Service Providers from requiring fees from content providers in order to get the bandwidth necessary to get their content to end users has morphed into a massive government power grab, with the FCC pushing to regulate the Internet as a public utility. All we know so far is that there are over 300 pages of proposed regulations. Very few (if anyone) outside of the FCC and the White House knows just what those regulations will entail.

Mozilla, makers of the Firefox browser, have been pushing a petition encouraging the FCC to pass its new regulatory measures. The petition talks about how “the Web is a global engine of innovation and entrepreneurship – a level playing field from which we can learn, connect and create.” It speaks out against “restricting freedom of choice online” and further states that “there should be no blocking and discrimination of content online.”

But the FCC’s regulations were built in the dark. While we might know at a theoretical level what we want from Net Neutrality, we have no idea what we’ll actually be getting…and if the FCC takes action to regulate the Internet as a public utility, we have no way of knowing what shape that will take in the future. With their petition, Mozilla shows an alarming naivete, blindly assuming that regulations they’ve never seen will do exactly what they want, and won’t morph into something even worse as time goes on. Didn’t we learn this same lesson from Obamacare? Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. They passed that bill, and millions of people found out (too late) that they don’t like it. Back then, President Obama told us “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Now he’s saying “If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.” We don’t need to fall for the same BS twice.

If you believe that “there should be no blocking and discrimination of content online,” then you should want to keep the government as far away from Internet regulation as possible.

Continue reading here.

The Battle Over DHS

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

On February 27, funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire, and once again, the blame-game is in full force in Washington. The House has passed a bill to fund all of DHS, with one exception: the House bill bars funding for the implementation of President Obama’s executive amnesty. Democrats claim that the GOP is placing funding for Homeland Security at risk. Nancy Pelosi has been quoted several times calling on the House to pass a “clean”funding bill, claiming that GOP attempts to stop executive amnesty amount to “anti-immigrant grandstanding.”

But what’s really going on here?

The House’s funding bill would pay for all current DHS operations. The only really significant thing about the House bill is that it leaves out funding for implementation of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive order. It does nothing to combat the massive amounts of waste at DHS. Nor does it do anything to combat any of DHS’s growing extraconstitutional law-enforcement activities. While Democrats would like us to believe that the Republicans’ bill is some deep, dark Tea Party scheme, I can guarantee you that many in the Tea Party would like to see cuts to DHS that extend far beyond just shutting down President Obama’s extraconstitutional executive order.

And likewise, the push to stop President Obama’s executive amnesty goes far beyond “anti-immigrant grandstanding.” Twenty-six states have sued the federal government to stop these unconstitutional actions, prompting a federal judge in Texas to issue an injunction.Secretaries of State from Ohio and Kansas have testified to Congress that Obama’s amnesty could enable illegal immigrants to get away with voter fraud, as “motor voter” laws that tie voter registration to government services will make it easy for illegal aliens to register to vote…and as they gain more ‘legal’ recognition from the government, it makes it that much harder for elections officials to weed out the non-citizens from the roles.

Continue reading here.

American Sniper

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

This past Saturday, I took the opportunity to see American Sniper, the movie about former Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle. With 160 confirmed kills during the Iraq War, Kyle has been dubbed the most lethal sniper in U.S. history. Watching this movie was a profound experience; Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller told a compelling tale of a military family’s struggles during war, and how difficult it can be for soldiers to transition from the horrors of war to a home where the war goes virtually unacknowledged.

Chris Kyle featured on the [ American Sniper ] article. AND Magazine - Photo: Archives - American Sniper is a 2014 American biographical war drama film directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle the deadliest marksman in U.S. military history with 255 kills, 160 of which were officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. The film is based on the book "American Sniper" by Chris Kyle.One thing that drew me to this film was the controversy surrounding it after it was released. All manner of columnists, pundits and talking heads sounded out on the movie, a lot of them obviously without watching a single frame. Michael Moore and Seth Rogen were some of the first to sound off (both on Twitter), Moore insinuating that Kyle was a “coward,” and Rogan stating that the movie reminded him of a Nazi propaganda film portrayed in Inglorious Basterds. Both walked back their initial comments after receiving tons of criticism – Moore claimed that he wasn’t really referring to Chris Kyle or American Sniper (though how he expects anyone to believe that when he tweeted right after the movie exploded at the box office is anyone’s guess), and Rogan released a statement that looked like it was written by his publicist as damage control.

The film has also received criticism because several times, Iraqis are referred to as “savages,” most of this surrounding a single passage from his book. It is simultaneously amusing and headache-inducing to hear many who criticize Kyle quote from this passage, as it soon becomes clear that they never saw the movie, but went on TV to provide commentary after they received that single quote from some program director. A lot of the criticism over these comments completely ignores the enemy we were fighting in Iraq. The Hussein regime was barbaric, and while much has been made of the Bush administration’s use of WMD programs as a justification for war, we should not ignore the fact that part of why we went to war in Iraq was to put an end to the Husseins’ reign of terror. The Al-Qaida forces who went to Iraq to fight our troops after the Hussein regime fell committed innumerable atrocities as they sought to kill American soldiers and inspire fear in the Iraqi people, to prevent them from helping us.

We were fighting a regime who would imprison and torture its own citizens for no reason other than being from a different sect of Islam. Terrorist forces who strapped bombs to mentally handicapped women, sent them into a crowded market, and blew them up. “Savage” is a mild term for the kind of barbarity our troops faced in Iraq, which itself provides a sad commentary on the fact that we have let much of that nation fall to Islamic State forces guilty of much worse.

Continue reading here.

The Obama Double-Standard

Pointing at the Left & making accusations of double-standards is nothing new, I know.  For too many on the Left, double-standards just seem to be a way of life, and pointing out those double-standards is almost cliché in the conservative blogosphere.  But rarely do we have the Left’s double-standards so starkly displayed by the President of the United States himself than we do today.

Shortly after President Obama delivered his latest lie-fest (aka his “State of the Union” address), the news media started buzzing about how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been invited to speak before a joint session of Congress, and that House Speaker John Boehner, whose office had made the invitation had -GASP- failed to notify or ask permission from the State Department.  For a few days there, I could swear that if I heard the words “breach of protocol” one more time, my head was going to explode.

obama_pout_xlargeThe White House then put on a collective pouting child act, acting hurt that a major world leader would come to the United States without meeting with His Lordship King Obama.  To the White House, this was a huge deal.  To the rest of us, it makes sense.

The Obama administration has never been a friend to Israel.  From the beginning, this president has paid lip service to being Israel’s ally, but always with an attitude approaching snide sarcasm.

When Israel went on a major offensive to prevent Palestinian terrorists from using tunnels to infiltrate their nation and murder their civilian population, the Obama State Department criticized them for making a strong offensive – despite the extreme lengths Israel goes to in every campaign to avoid civilian casualties, they cannot lift a finger to stop murdering terrorists without facing criticism.

But lately, the Obama administration has taken a stance toward Iran that is completely untenable to Israel.  The White House seems bound and determined to allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons capabilities, and right now is very publicly stating that the president will veto any legislation coming out of Congress to impose sanctions on Iran, which essentially amounts to continually spitting in the face of one of our closest allies.  The White House’s capitulatory stance toward Iran puts Israel at risk – especially considering that Iran is the primary supplier of the rockets that Hamas continuously and indiscriminately fires into Israel.  The rockets often miss their intended mark, but even a small nuclear payload in the form of a dirty bomb could be devastating.

After getting all pissy because Speaker Boehner decided to use his pen and his phone to unilaterally invite the Prime Minister to speak to Congress, the White House announced that they wouldn’t be meeting with Netanyahu while he was in Washington, due to a supposed “longstanding policy” to avoid meeting with leaders close to their elections – they wouldn’t want to influence foreign elections, after all.

Except that in 2009, President Obama met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel right before her re-election.  And in 1996, then-President Bill Clinton met with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres less than a month before elections.

Benjamin+Netanyahu+Chairs+Weekly+Israeli+Cabinet+aCQ4mtEabgelLet’s be honest: Barack Obama has a longstanding policy to avoid meetings with leaders he doesn’t like, and he doesn’t like leaders who take a strong stance against Islamic terrorism.  Obama’s only truly consistent side has been his insistence that it’s his way, or the highway.

But President Obama, and officials in his administration, have very high opinions of themselves, and they see this as a slight.  And to be slighted by someone they despise like Benjamin Netanyahu is intolerable.  And they are pissed.


And that, my friends, is the only reason why this is an issue at all.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,433 other followers