Power To The People


No Justice No Peace

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

Here is an excerpt:

After a careful review of multitudes of evidence, the Grand Jury chose not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Williams on murder charges for the shooting of Michael Brown.

Riots and looting began immediately following the prosecutor’s announcement. By the next morning, at least 25 businesses had been burned, 61 people arrested, numerous businesses looted, and countless windows broken throughout Ferguson and the surrounding area.

Darren Wilson’s side of the story has finally been released. According to Wilson’s account, he was leaving a call when he came upon Michael Brown and his accomplice, Dorian Johnson, walking down the middle of the street. Cars were maneuvering around them. They were obviously a road hazard, so Wilson told them to walk on the sidewalk. Next thing he knew, he was trapped in his car, being assaulted by Michael Brown, fearing for his life.

As much as Michael Brown’s parents, the protesters, and the activists may want to believe that Officer Wilson is some racist cracker pig who just felt like gunning down an unarmed black kid, that isn’t what happened. The physical evidence backed up Darren Wilson’s account of events. The “witnesses” who claimed to have seen Darren Wilson murder Michael Brown changed their stories.There was no case.

Continue reading here.

My Way Or The Highway

The verdict is in on Officer Darren Wilson.  He will not face a murder indictment for the shooting of Michael Brown.

Immediately following the announcement, riots broke out once again in Ferguson, MO.  This was no big surprise – there were going to be riots regardless of the outcome of the Grand Jury.  They’ve been working toward this for months; the announcement just gave the rioters the excuse they were looking for.

Like past incidents of racially-charged, controversial violence, the evidence and the verdict serve no practical purpose, other than that a police officer was not railroaded into prison to serve some political agenda.  While the people of Ferguson will be left to deal with the aftermath of yet another round of violence, this verdict likely spares them the ongoing protests and riots that would come out of a highly-publicized murder trial.

But overall, no one’s opinions have changed.  This verdict provides vindication for those of us who believed the shooting was justified, but for those who assume Darren Wilson to be some kind of cold-blooded killer, their minds will not be changed by this, nor will they be changed as the evidence that was shown to the Grand Jury is released.

President Obama made a statement urging calm in Ferguson, but consider his lead-off statement: “First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law,”  Rather ironic considering how just last week he chose to violate our Constitution’s separation of powers in an unprecedented manner.  His address showed about as much passion and personality as a dead fish – he may as well have numbered himself among those who believe Darren Wilson to be a murderer.

Meanwhile, a live feed out of Ferguson showed buildings on fire, the sound of shots ringing out.  Reports of destruction and looting began almost immediately.

Perhaps they’re just taking an example from our president: if things aren’t going their way, they’ll just throw “the rule of law” right out the window.

Pray for the law enforcement officers in Ferguson, as well as the store owners.

Dying Freedom

My latest column is up at AND Magazine!

Here is an excerpt:

Earlier this week, President Obama made headlines when, in a statement, he pushed to make the Internet a public utility that would fall under the regulatory authority of the FCC – a move that would open the door for massive federal regulation of the Internet.

This is yet another major policy decision coming from the Left with all of the best intentions, which would lead to disastrous consequences.

On the surface, Net Neutrality doesn’t sound too bad. Millions of people have cable, and like it…but not nearly as many people like their cable provider. In fact, companies like Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and AT&T tend to be rather notorious for their exceedingly poor customer service – who can forget this little gem, where a man called Comcast to cancel his service, and ended up arguing with a “customer service” representative for about 20 minutes. And to make it worse, in most markets, people have no choice other than to go with one of these huge providers. Net Neutrality is a great way to stick it to The Man.

So when Comcast started throttling back the bandwidth it allotted to Netflix, essentially holding bandwidth for ransom, it was cause for concern. What if other companies started inflicting content providers with fees in exchange for bandwidth? If Netflix ends up paying one fee to Comcast, and another to Verizon, and yet another to Time Warner, pretty soon they will start losing subscribers because they will have little choice other than to raise their fees…which, as it turns out, is great for the ISPs, which also happen to provide content of their own.

Continue reading here.

Obama’s Amnesty

All reports indicate that President Obama will be making a big announcement today – he will announce his plan to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens via executive order.  This is the president’s way of giving the middle finger to Republicans and every person who showed up at the polls in the midterm elections to kick the Democrats to the curb.

But, then, according to the president, this election wasn’t about any statement made by the voters, it was a statement made by those who stayed home.   According to President Obama, those people were telling him to double down, and to take action without Congress.


It’s difficult, of course, to discern exactly what statement is being made by a group of people who didn’t make a statement, but it could be just as valid to say that those people who didn’t vote are just as fed up with President Obama’s agenda as they are with GOP leadership.  But President Obama, ever the narcissist, will of course choose the interpretation that plays the most into his favor, allowing him to completely discount the election that gave his opponents their biggest majority since the Truman administration.

And, of course, President Obama’s post-election analysis completely contradicts his statements before the election…and his reported executive amnesty plans directly contradict statements he made on multiple occasions, where he explicitly pointed out to pro-amnesty activists that he didn’t have the authority to do exactly what he is planning to do.

But more troublesome than any plans President Obama may have to grant amnesty to lawbreakers who entered our nation illegally is the amnesty that GOP leadership seems determined to grant to a president who has already committed multiple violations of the Constitution.  With all of the talk about how President Obama is planning a blatant violation of the Constitution, all we seem to hear from the top Republicans in Congress is that they don’t want to impeach, they don’t want to use the power of the purse and risk a government shutdown, they don’t want to do anything to put the brakes on President Obama’s lawlessness, because it might make them look bad.

This is probably the single biggest problem in modern American politics: those in power are so consumed with sustaining their power that they will inevitably choose whatever course of action they think is most in their political interests, and will only do the right thing if and when it happens to align with their perception of political realities.  Meanwhile, millions of Americans are looking for those in power to do what’s right, rather than sticking to what is politically convenient.

The important question in all of this is not about how fighting President Obama’s planned executive amnesty will affect Republicans’ chances in the next election, or the one after that.  The important question is how failing to stop a president who wantonly violates the Constitution will affect the future of our Republic and the freedom of our people.  Upon taking office, the president takes an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and…to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  If a president fails to faithfully execute the requirements of his office, and works against the Constitution of the United States, then he has violated his oath, which falls under the umbrella of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

President Obama has the Joe Biden defense playing in his favor, of course – that is to say, if Obama is removed from office, then Joe Biden becomes the next president.  As distasteful as the words “President Biden” may sound, the alternatives are much worse.

If our Congress – regardless of any political parties involved – allows the president to continue to violate the Constitution, then our constitution has no meaning, and our Congress has no meaning.  If President Obama’s actions are allowed to set legal precedent, than any future president can do much the same.  The only limits on a president’s power will be the political winds.  The only reason Democrats aren’t nervous about the future implications of this is because they have a massive political apparatus – including labor unions, schools, activist groups, and much of the American media – on their side.  This gives them enormous sway over public opinion, and makes it much easier for them to villianize Republicans than vice-versa.

But even with all of these tools in their arsenal, they lost yet another midterm election, and there are indications that Americans are catching on to their political manipulations in ever-increasing numbers.

If Republicans truly care about the future of our nation, then it is time for them to put doing what is right ahead of sticking to what it politically expedient.  Our nation is depending on it.

The Importance of Jonathan Gruber

With the revelation of videos showing Obamacare “architect” and MIT Economics Professor Jonathan Gruber proudly broadcasting that the president’s signature legislation was strategically crafted using lies and deception because it would not have passed otherwise, the big question is, why does anyone care about Jonathan Gruber?


One indication of Gruber’s importance in the crafting of Obamacare is the transparent, blatant lies key Democrats told on the videos’ release. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that she has no idea who this Jonathan Gruber guy is, and that he played no role in the creation of Obamacare. You would think that Pelosi would do a little bit of research before making such a statement – at least enough to find that her own office cited Mr. Gruber’s Obamacare analysis back in 2009.

President Obama was a little more nuanced, as one would expect, referring to Gruber as “some adviser who was never on our staff,” and while that is technically true, it doesn’t mean that Gruber had no role to play in the crafting of Obamacare. There is good evidence that Gruber was fairly influential in the crafting of Obamacare. While he almost certainly wasn’t the only “architect” of Obamacare, he was, without a doubt, one of the key players. He visited the White House multiple times during the crafting of Obamacare, meeting with high-level officials, and was even in meetings with President Obama. So far, he has made nearly $5.9 million providing Obamacare consulting at the federal and state levels.

That’s a lot of money for “some adviser who was never on our staff.”

What makes Jonathan Gruber important? He was a key adviser in the crafting of one of the most controversial laws passed over the last century. His statements provide solid proof of allegations made by numerous Republicans and conservatives that the law had been purposefully crafted to skew the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis and confuse Congress and the American people. For conservatives, it isn’t surprising to hear that Obamacare was built on lies. The surprising thing is that the stupidity of an Obamacare architect was so strong that he would openly admit, on multiple occasions, that lies and deception were primary factors in getting the law passed.

Of Ebola and Quarantines

EbolaFortKentPresser102914 003.JPGNurse Kaci Hickox is making headlines in her showdown with the governments of New Jersey and Maine over their quarantine policies for people entering the United States from West African nations dealing with Ebola epidemics.

The quarantines have been imposed due to the federal government’s continued unwillingness to implement travel restrictions on Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. We have repeatedly been told, primarily by the Obama administration and their media allies, that travel bans and quarantines are “unscientific,” but this comes from the same administration that told us that you could not contract Ebola while riding on a bus with an infected person…and then in the next breath advised people who might be infected to stay away from public transportation. They tell us that they are taking every precaution, and then they tell us that it isn’t necessary to take every precaution.

Kaci Hickox, an employee of the CDC, has complained about how she was treated upon her return to the United States, and has slammed the quarantines as “inhumane,” and a violation of “basic human rights.” It seems that she was so upset by the inhumanity of having her temperature taken when she returned to the United States that got worked up enough to register a fever of over 100 degrees. Meanwhile, New Jersey and Maine are standing firm, and the government of Maine may even pursue legal action against Hickox for violating the quarantine.

The CDC and the Obama White House are actively opposing any travel restrictions or quarantines, calling them unscientific and unnecessary. And yet, the “scientists” giving the advice seem to be motivated more by politics than science – all while accusing those who seek to keep their states safe of doing the same thing.

So if even the idea of travel restrictions or quarantines is so “unscientific,” why would anyone consider imposing them? There is one, very simple reason:

People lie.

When Thomas Eric Duncan came to the United States from Liberia, he had no symptoms, though just days before he had been in close contact with multiple people who had Ebola. All he had to do to get into the United States was to lie on a questionnaire. In the ensuing weeks, the CDC had to track down hundreds of people that he had come into contact with, and two Dallas nurses ended up contracting the disease.

Dr. Craig Spencer, after returning from Guinea, where he had been treating Ebola patients, lied about staying under a voluntary quarantine, later admitting that he rode the subway, went out to dinner, and went bowling while he was supposed to be under quarantine. It wasn’t until authorities in New York started asking questions about activity on his Metro card that he admitted to having broken quarantine. Now, we just have to wait and see whether anyone else ends up contracting the virus during the course of his treatment.

To date, there have been 9 confirmed cases of Ebola in the United States – and that number includes 5 aid workers who were brought back to the U.S. for treatment after contracting Ebola in West Africa. So out of the 4 total cases of Ebola to be diagnosed in the United States, half of them have lied.

We are continually told that Ebola is difficult to contract, and it’s true that it is much more difficult to contract than any number of other diseases. But while Ebola is not airborne, it can be carried via saliva through, say, a sneeze. Two of the symptoms are projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea. Imagine either of those on a New York subway (if that’s even out of the ordinary for a New York subway). The most frightening thing about Ebola is not how easy or difficult it is to contract, the frightening thing is the mortality rate, which has ranged from 25 to 90 percent in past outbreaks. We have been extremely fortunate here in the United States thus far, as a low number of cases has allowed us to keep the mortality rate low.

But refusing to impose any travel restrictions or mandatory quarantine protocols means we’re playing with fire. We already know that it’s possible for people with Ebola to enter the United States with no symptoms. We already know that people – even medical professionals – will lie to get around voluntary quarantines. There is nothing unreasonable about making people wait 21 days so we can be absolutely sure that they are Ebola free and won’t potentially cause a public health crisis.  Our hospitals are scrambling to try and get the protective gear necessary for treatment of Ebola patients.   Our nation is woefully unprepared for a major outbreak, and if one were to occur before we are ready, it will mean the deaths of many Americans – deaths that can easily be prevented through travel restrictions and quarantines.

It also makes one wonder: if quarantining U.S. soldiers for 21 days is a “smart, wise, prudent, disciplined, science-oriented decision,” why wouldn’t the same be true of aid workers, who would be working much more closely with infected people?

Kaci Hickox may not be symptomatic now, as she flagrantly goes on a bike ride with her boyfriend. She may not have Ebola, may never become symptomatic, may never pose a danger to anyone. But when Thomas Eric Duncan flew to Dallas, he probably hoped the same for himself. When Dr. Craig Spencer took the subway to his bowling match, he likely thought everything was fine.

That the United States has not seen a much larger outbreak of Ebola has had more to do with luck than skill, and the administration seems intent on pressing their luck. We may very well soon be faced with the reality of a few politicians’ and bureaucrats’ poor decisions putting Americans’ lives at risk.

It’s Time To Stand For Something

My latest column is up at Right Wing News!

Here is an excerpt:

Jerry BrownWith the midterm elections just weeks away, the numbers indicate that Republicans are pretty well positioned to take control of the Senate. While this is good news, in that it would give Republicans what they need to pass much-needed legislation to stimulate our economy, strengthen our immigration system, and put the brakes on some of the out-of-control agencies in our federal government.

Not that they would have any prayer of getting this type of legislation signed by President Obama, but at the very least, it would give the lie to the “do-nothing” lies that Democrats have used to smear the Republican-controlled Congress.

But as usual, the Republican Party seems intent on squandering a great opportunity to secure a future for the party, and for conservatism, within the U.S. government.

President Obama, intent on doing anything and everything he can to skew the elections in the Democrats’ favor, has pushed off the announcement of insurance rate increases under Obamacare until after the midterm elections. He has put off his plan to take executive action on amnesty until after the midterm elections (though the federal government has been caught making preparations for amnesty). He has delayed the announcement of his pick for Attorney General until after the midterm elections. He has pretty much delayed his entire agenda until after the midterms, because the only concrete action he can possibly take to improve Democrats’ chances is to do nothing.

Continue reading here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,433 other followers