Wednesday, February 3, 2016

The rise of Bernie Sanders – the Fall of America

All eyes may be on the Republican primary and the brewing battles between Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump and Fox News, and Donald Trump and National Review, and Donald Trump and fill-in-the-blank -- but the Democratic race is where the real news is happening.

The fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist, is heating up the campaign trail against the one-time presumptive primary winner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is one of the biggest tragedies facing America right now. It also happens to be one of the most under-reported.

Flash back to February 2009 when the cover of Newsweek blared forth the shocking headline, “We Are All Socialists Now” and the inside article elaborated with the subtitled query: “Can America Adopt a More European Model, Only With a Faster Rate of Growth?” Then there were the widely watched “Hardball” interviews of July 2015 and January 2016 when MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked the Democratic National Committee’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mrs. Clinton, respectively, to define the differences between their political party and Socialism, with the ensuing results in both cases being wide-eyed stutters and off-guard stumbles. Then there was the should-be-historic reach-out of President Obama to Socialist Mr. Sanders with a January 27 closed-door meeting at the White House, the nation’s highest hallways of power, to trade thoughts on ISIS, foreign policy and other matters of political importance.

Anybody else see the alarm here?

Add in Mrs. Clinton’s lagging poll numbers, due in large part to her own doing, and the simultaneous rise of Mr. Sanders’, and what we have is a seismic shift in politics, one that says bluntly, It’s okay to admit being a Socialist. The tag doesn’t bring a blacklist. It brings an invite to the White House.

True, Democrats have been leaning Socialist for some time. But they’ve been masking it as progressive policy.

Mr. Sanders now represents for Socialists what Michael Sam, the first openly gay NFL player, represented for the homosexual rights movement – legitimacy. His Simon and Garfunkel “America” all-court press has freed Socialists from the shadows. Their stigma is gone. And that – not the poll numbers, or the day-to-day politicking, or the he-said, she-said arguments, but rather the sad disappearance of America’s noble republic, complete with principles of limited government as based on God-given rights – is the big story, the media-missed picture. Giving Mr. Sanders such a large platform is a startling commentary on the state of U.S. politics and culture. Watching his Socialist race be greeted with such favor is a pitiful discovery that speaks volumes about the country’s demise.

The fact that some argument has popped from the far-left camps condemning Mr. Sanders as little more than a Socialist wanna-be, and that the candidate himself often says he’s more a Democratic-Socialist, is little comfort to those who see America in the same vein as the Founding Fathers – or little matter. It’s the movement of Socialism into the mainstream, in either hyphenated form or stand-alone, that’s the larger concern, the loudest outrage.

Thomas Jefferson was said to have written, “It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, offered this, in a January 19 Twitter post: “Our job is to tell every kid in this country, that if they work hard, regardless of family income, they will get a college education.” Or this, the same day: “I got a message for the Walton family of Walmart: Get off of welfare and pay your workers a living wage.” Or this a day earlier, of a Martin Luther King Jr. quote: “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth.”

These are the ideas that are gaining steam in America. Truthfully, they have been for years, and from both sides of the political aisles. The disappointing and depressing realization, though, is that thanks in large part to Mr. Sanders and his steaming charge through Iowa toward New Hampshire, outing them out as Socialist is not dimming their appeal.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Essay-Writing Requirement to Get Gun Permit as Unconstitutional As Can Be

Truly, it’s doesn’t get more unconstitutional than this.

A small town in Massachusetts – Lowell, located about 35 miles from Boston – has apparently decided the best way to keep criminals from shooting and killing innocent citizens is to make residents who want unrestricted carry permits first pen essays explaining just why, and then submit those justifications to the chief of local police to grade. Those who don’t obtain passing grades aren’t given their permits.

Insert “Are you kidding me” expression of disbelief here. In effect, the town of Lowell has exempted itself from the Second Amendment.

Of course, the powers-who-be don’t see it that way. They see it as a necessary precaution, a way of ultimately saving citizens from crime and killers.

Or, as local Police Superintendent William Taylor told City Council members when he approached them with his brainchild notion: “We wanted to make sure we allowed people to exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm, but do it with a balanced, reasonable approach.”

And Taylor, it seems, is just the guy to determine that this constitutional right to carry in a balanced and reasonable way is being upheld, because that’s who City Council members named as the grader of all these papers.

“Chief Bill Taylor has sole authority when it comes to deciding which gun permit essays make the grade,” Inquisitr reported.

The background of this policy, which also includes a mandate that approved permit carriers attend firearms’ safety and training classes at their own expense – up to $1,100 – is that Lowell has maintained a tight control on guns for decades, denying most all concealed carry permit applicants for the past 30 years or so. So this new gun control provision is actually being billed as a freedom.

Local authorities also say applicants don’t actually have to write the essay, but doing so would certainly strengthen their appeals for permits.

Well, isn’t that special. So Lowell citizens have not only been suffering under Second Amendment dings for decades, but now, in some sort of Twilight-Zone-meets-George-Orwell doublespeak scenario, they’re going to be voluntarily forced to beg local officials in writing for their already-guaranteed constitutional rights – and in so doing, subtly acknowledge that this a move toward freedom?

As Jim Wallace with the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts said in a statement: “It is absurd. … It’s like having a college professor say, ‘I’m going to read your essay and if I don’t like it, I’m going to give it back to you.’”

Who made the police the gate guard for the Second Amendment? As one freedom-loving patriot said of the topsy-turvy aspect of the situation: “Did the chief of police write an essay to the City [Council] explaining why he and his police force should have the right to carry?”

Indeed. But those who laugh at that question are part of the problem.

In America, where rights come from God, not government, that simple question goes to the nuts and bolts of the tragedy of Lowell’s gun policies. Citizens, in far too many communities and in way too many cases of constitutional issues, have become conditioned to believe those in the public arena, the tax-paid servants, are above the very laws they are trusted to enforce – that they themselves are the sources and lone arbiters of rights and authorities.

The Second Amendment, based on the view of human rights the Founding Fathers all shared, is clear: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nowhere does it speak of essays and grades and chief of police powers to determine who may carry firearms, and who may not.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Loretta Lynch’s Mind-Boggling Bend of Truth on Obama’s Unilateral Gun Control

Boy, what a neat trick this is.

President Obama tells the American public he’s going to bypass Congress on gun control and instead, issue some unilateral commands. One of his leading lying ladies, aide Valerie Jarrett, follows that, to paraphrase, by spinning, ‘Oh, don’t be silly, Obama’s not really bypassing Congress – he’s just issuing executive orders.’ And now we’ve got an entirely disingenuous U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch taking to Capitol Hill to say: Obama’s taking executive action – true. But it’s really not really, truly executive action. Why not? Because Congress already gave him authority, via the Gun Control Act, to take these executive actions – and as such, they’re not really, truly executive actions.

Well, shut the front door. Suddenly, Obama’s much-hated executive actions on gun control have become legislative actions.

And the added political genius for this far-left White House? They’re not just legislative actions. They’re Republican legislative actions – since Congress, after all, is controlled by the GOP.

As the Grateful Dead might say, when it comes to Obama’s unconstitutional seizure of powers and his team’s subsequent rationalization of said seized powers: What a long, strange trip it’s been.

Only scratch the “long.” Obama’s spin only took a few weeks.

Look at what Lynch just told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, with a straight face: “The Gun Control Act lists the people who are not allowed to have firearms, such as felons, domestic abusers and others. Congress has also required that background checks be conducted as part of sales made by federally licensed firearms dealers to make sure guns stay out of the wrong hands. … The actions announced by the president, which focus on background checks and keeping guns out of the wrong hands, are fully consistent with the laws passed by Congress.”

By that logic, the president doesn’t need a Congress at all.

Think about it. What Lynch is saying is that if a law exists on a particular topic, then the president of the United States is free to run with that law in whatever direction his (or one day perhaps, her) personal agenda leads. The only standard to abide would be to show the executive action is “consistent” with the previously passed law.

Nobody knows for sure, but one count put the number of federal laws and regulations that could be criminally enforced somewhere in the vicinity of 300,000. Other estimates don’t even try to count, suggesting to do so would be akin to numbering the sands of the sea. But if Lynch’s view were to hold true – and if the president were constitutionally justified in taking any old previously passed law and adding to it as seeing fit -- then the door seems wide open to dismiss all the members of Congress and send them home. Who needs them?

Not the president, who could then command and direct and order and dictate at will, so long as White House lawyers are able to make the case these commandments and directives are “consistent” with existing laws.

What an absurd argument. An executive order is an executive order is an executive order.

What a skewed argument. That it came from the mouth of our nation’s highest law enforcement official, the one who’s supposed to prop up the legal foundations of our federal government and stand firm on the side of justice and truth, is just evidence of the absolute wickedness of this current White House and of Obama’s chosen few.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Louie Gohmert to evangelicals: Tread carefully on Donald Trump due to views on God, forgiveness

Rep. Louie Gohmert, one of Capitol Hill's staunchest defenders of the Constitution and the country's Judeo-Christian roots, said in a recent interview with Newmax TV he liked Donald Trump, understood why evangelicals would support him, but that those of the faith needed to think hard on their vote, given the billionaire businessman's previous statements about God.

Specifically, Gohmert spoke of Trump's past remarks about believing in God, but never asking for forgiveness.

"That really is amazing that evangelicals would say, well clearly he has never admitted what Jesus said – you know, you got to admit that you're a sinner saved by the grace of Jesus and if you have never admitted that, then it's amazing that so many evangelicals will say this is the guy," Gohmert said, Breitbart reported.

He then said he understood why Trump's message was resonating among Christians and evangelicals, just the same.

"I do understand there they are coming from though," he said. "We have seen the country do such a huge about-face in such a short time, so that now people are not just persecuted but prosecuted for their Christian beliefs."

And he went on, saying he also liked much of Trump's message, but could not blindly dismiss some of his past statements.

"I love a lot of the things that Donald Trump is saying," Gohmert said, Breitbart reported. "But then you worry since he is a deal maker and he knows how to win, is he doing what he needs to do to win now, and then going to turn around and go back to the principles he stood on for nearly all of his life in the general election? And then evangelicals have nowhere else to go at that point."

Thursday, January 21, 2016

George Washington Book Ban a Slippery Slope of Extremism

Scholastic, producers of children’s reading materials – and one of the leading companies of student publications for schools around the world – just pulled a picture book about George Washington and his slaves. Why?

The reasons are ridiculous.

A Birthday Cake for George Washington,” released earlier this month, was painted as “sentimentaliz[ing] a brutal part of American history,” the Associated Press reported. In other words, the problem was the pages showed happy slaves – a smiling Hercules and his daughter, Delia, cooking up a celebratory cake for their master and owner, Gen. Washington. And the publisher said in a statement: That image just doesn’t cut it.

“The book may give a false impression of the reality of the lives of slaves and therefore should be withdrawn,” Scholastic said.
Because slaves never smiled – never, never, not under any circumstances, ever? Okay. That’s a viewpoint. But this is a book for first-through-third graders. For that age, everybody smiles – including animals and inanimate objects. Some of them even dance. Can you say Disney’s Beauty and the Beast? (Imagine the outrage if the smiling slaves in “A Birthday Cake for George Washington” did that. Or, look at it the other way and imagine the outrage if the father-daughter enslaved duo were instead presented as bare-backed and downtrodden, with bloody red whip marks stretched wide across their skeletal torsos.)

Regardless, censorship in this instance is not only unfounded -- they’re third-graders, for crying out loud. Plenty of time to instill their minds with the true horrors of slavery in grades four-through-12 and beyond. But, and this is true with all forms of censorship, it also presents a slippery slope.

Censor one book, what about another? That sort of thing. And in this case, the finger-pointing can indeed do a 180 and turn right back at the source, Scholastic.

What does a book about an 8-year-old boy named George who desperately wants others to see him as a girl, have in common with a cartoon-esque account of a Captain Underpants character who time travels to discover he’s gay? That’s right – they’re both published by Scholastic.

“The world’s largest publisher and distributor of children’s books is heavily promoting a pro-transgender book designed for students as young as third grade,” Life Site News wrote in September 2015, of “George,” by Alex Gino, an author who paints himself as a 20-year activist for “queer and trans” issues.

So transgender and homosexuality for third-graders is okay; smiling slaves, not. Because ostensibly books on transgender and homosexuality promote tolerance while books on smiling slaves tap at a history most want to forget, skewed as it may be.

Got it. Except, of course, there’s this one little troublesome point with that rationalization. Censorship of such blatant and agenda-driven selectiveness reeks of Nazi Germany days.

Remember Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s propaganda man?

In 1933, Goebbels drew a crowd of about 40,000 – most of whom hailed from the college and intellectual camps, those who thought they knew best how Germans ought to be raised and taught – for a massive book burning by bonfire, in order to, as he termed it, “clean up the debris of the past.” How is that different from America’s current infatuation with cleaning up the debris of our slavery past, tearing down monuments of Robert E. Lee, pressing to remove statues of Thomas Jefferson, demanding to obliterate evidence of Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson from Stone Mountain in Georgia? Now come the books – beginning with the elementary-level “A Birthday Cake for George Washington.” Beware the slippery slope; America is not Germany, but for the grace of God and the sanity of her people, could very well one day be.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Supreme Court to take up case against Obama's executive amnesty

Big one to watch ...

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday hear oral arguments about President Obama's amnesty plan that would save five million or so illegals from deportation.

The court could rule by springtime, opening the doors for Obama to press forward with his amnesty hopes before he leaves office.

Obama originally claimed his executive role allows him the power to prosecute, or not, illegals. But challengers refuted his statement, saying his White House went far and beyond

"I think they strike it down," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former prosecutor, adding the court would probably rule on a 6-3 line, based on the confines of what's allowable for prosecutors.

In short, Graham said Obama claimed "prosecutorial disretion" by granting legal status to millions of people, and in so doing, acted more "as if he were a legislative" entity, Fox News reported.

Obama's executive action, highly contested by conservatives, gave illegals the right to stay in America if their children were lawful citizens, and gave minor-age illegals the right to stay if they came to this country before age 16. Critics called it an amnesty provision that bypassed Congress and 26 states soon after launched a lawsuit against the administration.

Monday, January 18, 2016

Business on edge as Obama preps 'audacious' executive actions in end-of-term rush

We should ALL be a bit on edge ...

Members of the business community are expressing trepidation for President Obama's final days in office, saying the "audacious" executive actions he's vowed to take are sure to cause a dramatic ripple effect throughout the economy.

"Executive orders are very tough to deal with," said Thomas Donohue, the president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Hill reported. "I believe presidents ought to have executive power, but there are instances or times when it is abused and used basically to get around the Congress – not to deal with emergencies or particular sensitive issues that everyone sort of agrees on."

He vowed his Chamber would be watching the White House closely.

"You can assume that we will be very involved with every tool we have," Donohue said, the Hill reported.

Donohue's comments come on the heels of a comment from White House chief of staff Denis McDonough that the administration is poised to take "audacious" executive actions on a range of matters, all of them aimed at ensuring "the steps we have taken are ones we can lock down and not be subjected to undoing through [Congress] or otherwise," the Hill said.

The White House hasn't specified all the executive actions Obama hopes to take, but some that have been mulled and discussed include the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reforms to criminal justice and address of poverty, cancer, drug use, Guantanamo Bay and ISIS.

"I'm nervous," said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel of the Professional Services Council, on any executive order that might come dealing with political spending from government contractors.

Friday, January 15, 2016

Why Did Our Sailors Bend Their Knees to Iran in the First Place?

By now, most news-watchers around the world have seen the video clips or screen grabs of the surrender of 10 U.S. sailors to Iran’s armed revolutionary guard, as well as the subsequent televised apology of the American identified by Tehran’s Press TV as the commander of the group.

But little has been said about the sailors’ actions as they pertain to the Code of the U.S. Fighting Force. That’s the doctrine that requires all members of U.S. military forces to take whatever steps necessary to oppose captors -- to uphold, as it reads, the “Code of Conduct, which has evolved from the heroic lives, experiences and deeds of Americans from Revolutionary War to the Southeast Asian Conflict.”

Frankly speaking, members of the U.S. military shouldn’t be taking knees before their captors – shouldn’t be leaning back with smiles against the walls of their places of capture – shouldn’t be sitting in placid defeatism with forced hijabs or other un-American military garb upon their heads. And they definitely shouldn’t be doing it while video cameras roll.

It’s not just U.S. code that requires U.S. military forces, if captured, to “resist by all means available.” It’s not just U.S. code that states “when questioned” by captors, to give only “name, rank, service number and date of birth” and to “evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability,” including making “oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.”

It’s America’s spirit that ought to compel the same.

Seeing members of the United States military, the greatest fighting force on the face of the Earth, in a state of submission, defeat and humility before armed rag-tags is a disgusting commentary on the sickened spirit of our country. What happened to the notion of never surrender? What happened to the surprised wakening of the sleeping giant?

Where are the George Pattons of our generation?

Surrender has no place in America’s military – whether speaking of declared war or tool of propaganda. Americans. Don’t. Surrender.

Gen. Jack Keane, the retired four-star general of the U.S. Army and former Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, hinted during a Fox News broadcast interview the sailors’ behavior and response to Iran’s aggression was going to be part of the ensuing investigation. He said, in broadcast remarks: “[The apology was] not an apology from the United States government, that’s an apology from the youngster who’s trying to protect his crew, and his behavior will be held accountable for in any investigation to determine whether that was justified or not.”

Good. An investigation into the whole fiasco, from Iran’s possible failures to uphold international laws to the U.S. sailors’ actions while in custody, is certainly warranted. But really, any investigation that doesn’t focus on the actions of the White House under President Obama these past years will prove second-rate. If Obama wasn’t such a weak leader, if Obama didn’t hold Iran as morally and politically equivalent to Israel, if Obama hadn’t insisted on an nuclear deal with Tehran that much of the rest of the world saw as a dangerous cave – those U.S. sailors never would have been put in the position of taking knees before representatives of the regime.

No U.S. sailor apology would have followed.

The weakness and ineffectiveness of Obama emboldened Iran to take these sailors captive. And now these sailors’ actions, whether in line with military code and the spirit of America or not – and the video, sadly, would seem to suggest “not” -- are still only further evidence of the lacking respect the United States has experienced under its feckless commander-in-chief. It’s Obama who deserves the most scrutiny, and the harshest judgment.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Obama Tears? Watch the Video -- My Bet’s On Menthol

Watch the video. President Obama wasn’t crying during his announced executive actions on gun control – he was faking.

The production opens with Obama speaking of unalienable rights and the pursuit of happiness and how those high-schoolers at Columbine and first-graders at Newtown, Connecticut, were deprived, due to lost lives from gun violence. He pauses several seconds, stares, repeats the phrase, “first-graders.”

Obama then stares directly into the lens – right into the eyes of the American people – as the cameraman hones in slowly for a tight, cropped shot of his face.

“And from every family who never imagined their loved one would be taken from their lives by a bullet from a gun,” he continues, pausing once again.

Suddenly, Obama raises a hand, extends a finger, wipes his left eye, and the American public is
transfixed at this sudden show of emotion. Is Obama crying? Is he shedding tears?

Stop video. Rewind. And look.

Obama doesn’t just flick his finger at his eye. He wipes downward, across the lid, and then runs his finger along the whole bottom rim, following the line of the lashes. Then he blinks eight or so times.

A teary-eyed President Obama talks gun control.
But here’s the part to notice at this point: His eye is dry. Completely devoid of tears; completely lacking dampness. Yet Obama’s supposedly wiping away tears.

Click play.

Obma then pauses, lowers his head, and with hand cupped, thumb and forefinger bent, partially covers his mouth, once, twice – classic tells of lies – then shakes his finger for emphasis and speaks again.

“Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad,” he says, reaching up and wiping the corner of his other eye, the right one, with a quick motion.

Finally, a tear drops out of that right eye and slides down his cheek. He turns his head slightly and viola, at last, his left eye is now wet all around.

Mission accomplished. Camera’s got the shot. Time to move on to policy. Almost as fast as the tears came, they disappear, and Obama’s next words – after a mention of violence in Chicago -- are scolds for those in Congress and on the streets of America to support his agenda.

“So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobbies’ lies,” he says, wiping the dry space below his now-clear eyes again. “All of us need to stand up and protect our citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislators and businesses do their part to make our communities safer … demand something better.”

He wraps with another wipe to the dry skin beneath his right eye.

Curtain fall. Exit, stage right. Bow and applause. So how’d he do it – how’d Obama manage the tearful performance?

The article “How to Cry – An Actor’s Guide to Crying and Tears” sheds some light, explaining some of the methods the professionals use to drop teardrops on demand, within 60 seconds or so. The first suggested method, tapping into “memory driven tears,” requires the actor to be “very in touch with his or her past” in order to select a prior experience that guarantees the waterworks. The second asks the actor to tap into personal fears, and dredge up tears that way.

“Both of [these] techniques … take a lot of imagination, emotional awareness and most of all, diligent practice,” the article states.

I think we can rule out those methods for Obama.

Next recommendation: “Be in the moment,” the article suggests. Given all the pauses for special effect, head dropping reflection and eye-blinking drama Obama underwent, no doubt he was feeling the moment – but was in the moment enough?

“Unfortunately,” the article goes on, “there is a problem with the ‘Be in the Moment’ technique. It does not work in every play. What if you have to cry, but you personally don’t ‘feel’ it?”

Given the American public has not seen Obama cry before – not after the Newtown shootings, or the Columbine murders, or the other gun-related acts of violence that he says makes him feel so despondent – it’s probably a safe bet Obama wasn’t feeling it as much as he humanly could. Not enough to drop real tears on demand, anyway. After all, he didn’t earn the label as a cold and detached leader for nothing. And he was making a pressure-filled nationally televised appeal to take unprecedented action for something he held dear to his legacy. So this brings up the tricks of the Hollywood trade.

“Although some movie stars utilize some of the techniques mentioned above, many actors opt for an easier solution: menthol,” the article concluded.

And that’s where my money rests – on a dab of Vicks vapor rub or similar menthol-laced product slid along the lid and bottom of an eye. The pungent fumes, combined with Obama’s practiced “Be in the Moment” rhetoric and reflections, jumpstarted the tear in his right eye; the tears from his left, fueled by the actual sting of the menthol, then fell fast and unfettered.

“A menthol tear stick and menthol tear producers are tools of the film and theater trade,” the article states. “The stick version requires a sparse application under the eyes … [and] produce[s] immediate results.”

Like I said, watch the video. Pause. Rewind and play again.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

New York Daily News mocks GOP for praying, post-San Bernardino shooting, calls Republicans 'cowards'

The New York Daily News couldn't be blunter in its characterization of those in the Republican Party who turned to prayer after the San Bernardino shooting, rather than gun control, blasting out a headline that basically read: Relying on God was stupid.

The newspaper's front page contained a headline is huge font that read, in all caps: "GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS." Above, it read: "14 dead in California mass shooting." Beneath, it read: "As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hid behind meaningless platitudes."

And what were those "meaningless platitudes?"

Alongside the borders of the front page, the New York Daily News ran images of portions four Republican leadership tweets.

From Sen. Lindsey Graham, who's seeking the presidency: "Thoughts and prayers are with ..."

From House Speaker Paul Ryan: "Please keep the victims of #SanBernardino, California in your prayers."

From Sen. Ted Cruz, a rising presidential candidate in the polls: "Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the first responders in San Bernardino ..."

And from presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul, referred to as Dr. Rand Paul: "My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, families, and brave first responders ..."

Other presidential candidates, like former Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush tweeted out messages of prayer as well.

And as if the message of the newspaper's senselessness of prayer wasn't made obvious, the New York Daily News also highlighted the word "prayers" in each of copied Twitter messages with yellow.

The prayer shaming went deeper than hitting at the Republican notables. The headline came at the same time news reports broke of community members in San Bernardino not only requesting prayer for the victims of the shooting that left 14 dead and 17 injured, but also gathering in a prayer circle to thank God for blessings, Fox News reported.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

William & Mary College students: Boot Jefferson statue -- he's a 'racist' and 'rapist'


Students attending the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia – the second oldest college in the nation – say the statue of Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson ought to be removed from campus because the Founding Father was little more than a "rapist" and racist.

The statue's been peppered with yellow sticky notes of what students think of him. Among the slurs, Breitbart reported: "Racist." "Rapist." "Black Lives Matter."

The statue of Thomas Jefferson at William & Mary College
Other notes stuck on the statue state, "he knew it was wrong," and "stop worshiping racists."

Students at the school say the statue should be removed from the grounds – and this isn't the only campus where this move is afoot.

As Breitbart reported, University of Missouri students have sent around a petition to boot their own campus Jefferson statue from the school grounds.

It states, in part: "The need to project a progressive environment is just as important as food and shelter to survive. A welcoming  environment does not stop at the feet of individuals in particular spaces. A welcoming environment is also determined by its physical environment e.g., the use of artifacts in designated spaces. Some individuals may not see Thomas Jefferson’s statue in the quad as a form of oppression, but in higher education settings where highly conscious students are present, it is relatively easy to see and read such nonverbal messages. Thomas Jefferson's statue sends a clear nonverbal message that his values and beliefs are supported by the University of Missouri. Jefferson's statue perpetuates a sexist-racist atmosphere that continues to reside on campus."

William & Mary's website reports its Jefferson statue came by way of a gift from the University of Virginia. The dedication plague includes a quote from Jefferson that reads: "I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man."

Monday, November 23, 2015

Jason Rezaian, Washington Post chief, sentenced by Iran to jail -- for unclear reasons

Obama? Obama? .... Hello, White House???

Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post's bureau chief in Tehran, was sentenced to jail for espionage and other charges by Iranian authorities.

He's been sentenced to an unspecified amount of time, NBC News reported.

Rezaian, who's been detained for 480-plus days in Iran, has denied all charges, and so has his newspaper and family. He was convicted anyway in October, but Tehran authorities never specified his exact alleged violations. Rather, they simply accused him of espionage and some other charges, as previously reported by WND.

The State Department didn't immediately confirm the sentencing.

"We've seen the reports of a sentence in the case of U.S. citizen Jason Rezaian in Iran but cannot confirm the details ourselves at this time," said John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, NBC News reported. "If true, we call on the Iranian authorities to vacate this sentence and immediately free Jason so that he can be returned to his family."

The Washington Post, meanwhile, said its executives were "aware of the reports" about the sentencing, but couldn't confirm its truthfulness, either.

"Every day that Jason is in prison is an injustice," said the newspaper's foreign editor, Douglas Jehl, in a statement reported by NBC News. "He has done nothing wrong."

Friday, November 20, 2015

Donald Trump vows to 'absolutely' track Muslims via database: It 'would stop people from coming in illegally'

Donald Trump, whose poll numbers in recent days have soared, due in large part to his response to the recent ISIS terror attack in Paris, told MSNBC in a nationally televised interview he would "absolutely" tap into database technology to track the entrance and movements of Muslims into America.

"I would certainly implement that," he said, the Hill reported.

When asked if Muslims would be required by law to sign up for the database, he said: "They have to be. They have to be."

Trump went on, explaining how security needs will require additional surveillance of the Muslim community.

"[The database] would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally," Trump said.

And in a separate interview with Yahoo, he spoke similarly.

"Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy," Trump said. "We're going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

Thursday, November 19, 2015