Category: Guest Authors

Republican Circular Firing Squads

Republican Circular Firing Squads 

By Cathy Craddock

Senator Cruz made this observation:

“If 41 Republicans stand together in the Senate or 218 Republicans stand together in the House, we can win this fight; we can defund Obamacare in its entirety,”

The clock is ticking and to date 14 Senators and about 80 House members are on board.

“But the only way that’s going to happen is if the American people stand together and demand it.”

The Kaiser Poll shows 57 percent of Americans oppose defunding it. While ObamaCare is not popular, people feel that the budget process should not be used as a tactic to circumvent a law. I am on board with this philosophy because I really resent when Executive Orders are used to bypass legislation.

Both Sen. Pat Toomey and Congressman Pat Meehan claim they can pass legislation to dismantle Obamacare apart bit by bit. They say they have the votes (bi-partisan) to repeal the tax on medical instruments and to get rid of the death panel (IPAB ). There is agreement on other aspects as well.  They don’t want Obamacare to survive any more than we do.

Recently I have started to cringe when I hear “hold’em accountable”. Heritage and other groups pressure us to hold lawmakers “accountable” if they fail to heed our DEMANDS. Just how do you hold someone accountable for something he never PROMISED to do? Will Toomey and Meehan be marked with scarlet TP letters since they obviously don’t intend to comply with the Cruz/Lee ill-fated scheme?

On the other hand, YES WE CAN and should hold them accountable if they don’t follow through on their proposed brick-by-brick delay tactics.

Honestly, “Defund Obamacare” is DOA (dead on arrival). Probably won’t pass the House. If it does, Harry Reid won’t bring it up in the Senate. If he does and it passes, Obama will veto it and there aren’t enough votes to override the veto. What’s the point??????

We have met the enemy and it is us. Circular thinking and circular firing squad.

So sick of it! I am sick of all the national groups like Heritage and Freedom Works acting like “thought herders”. Tired of us being sock puppets (lemmings?) when they issue a call for collective action accompanied by the big DONATE button to click on for the cause.

Maybe we’re really hamsters – running endlessly and getting nowhere for a losing strategy that seriously jeopardizes any hope of winning the Senate in 2014.

We might even lose the House because “our” people will turn on incumbents like Toomey and Meehan if they don’t toe the line. You know who they are … the ones who see themselves as “hammers” and the incumbents as “nails”.

Republican Circular Firing SquadsI can just imagine the Democrats doing a little jig as they plan their 2014 campaign ads against the mean-spirited, racist Obama-hating Republicans who don’t want little Timmy to get his asthma treatments, along with all the other tear jerking personal stories they’ll plaster on TV.

We never win the PR war – nor do we understand it. We just trust that low-information voters across America will be impressed with our principled stance.

Well, how’s that been working out so far?

Does She Chew Slippers Too?

Does She Chew Slippers Too?

By Jim Vanore

 I like dogs.

I’ve had seven over the course of my lifetime—two as a kid and five as an adult—two German Shepards, two Dachshunds, Irish Setter, Beagle, Cocker Spaniel.

I trained (or attempted to) all the dogs I had as an adult. For more than 30 years now, I’ve chosen to live without pets. I have neither the wherewithal, the time, nor the inclination to have a dog in my home. Those days are over, much the same as my days of owning a motorcycle (I’ve only had six of those).

Dogs are wonderful animals, and I heartily believe they have earned their sobriquet as “Man’s Best Friend.” They are loyal, funny, interesting, protective, and often looked upon as a part of your family. That seems reasonable, since it’s widely believed that dogs look at humans as…well, just another dog!

As much as I like our canine friends, there is a noted separation in the acceptable behavior for each of our respective species.

• Humans eat (predominantly) at a table, and more often than not we use utensils (even while enjoying a hoagie, I usually use a knife to plunge the contents down into the roll).
•Dogs eat and drink by plunging their faces into a bowl.

• Humans relieve themselves (again, predominantly) in private at appliances made specifically for that function.
• Dogs let it fly in public.

• Humans share intimacy (porn stars and Hollywood pigs notwithstanding) with the one they love—in private.
• Dogs will fornicate on the municipal common and hump any available human leg when the mood strikes.

None of these activities is to the dogs’ detriment; they are not human, and hence do not have our powers of judgment, nor our sense of propriety. We appreciate them, respect them for what they are, and our affection for them is renowned.

We do think it’s funny though, how they so often act like people, almost mimicking us as they join us in the family car, saunter down the sidewalk with us, whimper when they want something, or lean against us with a sad face when they know we are feeling blue.

It’s outright charming when a dog acts like a human. It’s what endears them to us.

The converse however, is untrue. It’s outright nauseating when a human acts like a dog.

Does She Chew Slippers Too? is excerpted from Good Writer’s Blogspot

Hollywood Movies Aren’t Leftist

Hollywood movies aren’t letist By Chris Freind


News flash: Leftist Hollywood is at it again! “Elysium,’ the summer blockbuster starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, has, dare we say it, political overtones, which numerous right-wing groups have denounced as liberal propaganda.

What a surprise.

Honestly, I’m not sure what’s more annoying: These folks sounding like a broken record about the horrors of “liberal’ Hollywood, or the fact that they are, flat-out, completely wrong.

If they stopped blathering for just a second and looked at the real Tinseltown, they would realize that A.) the vast majority of movies have much more of a conservative tilt than a liberal one, and B.) they’d be a whole lot better off becoming part of the entertainment industry instead of incessantly complaining, but doing nothing to change it. In other words, try lighting a few candles instead of cursing the darkness.

A big part of the problem is that too many fail to see the difference between those who produce, direct and star in movies versus the messages of the movies themselves.

Are many, if not most, individuals in the industry politically liberal? No question. But, overall, their movies are not. And that’s because the Hollywood masterminds aren’t dumb. They inherently understand that if they produced films that were leftist in nature, they would lose billions by alienating a huge chunk of American moviegoers. And make no mistake — Hollywood’s first goal is to make money.

The proof is in the pudding, as the most common themes of the biggest movies are anything but far-left: Good guys carrying guns; self-reliance; redemption; racial harmony; fighting for freedom against impossible odds; standing up against corporate greed; stopping terrorists; telling the truth despite the consequences; keeping families together and the rewards of a strong work ethic. Oh, and did we mention good guys carrying guns? (Emphasis on that one never hurts).

So where exactly is that infamous liberal bias? And how do any of the above qualify as leftist indoctrination?

Instead of embracing Hollywood for what it does “right,’ too many on the right ignore the good and instead throw fire to get their 30-second sound bite or use the “liberal Hollywood elite’ line to raise money.

Take all the recent criticism of “Elysium.’ The standard attack line is that it’s a sci-fi socialism pic, portraying the haves versus the have-nots by highlighting the issues of class warfare, health care only for the rich and immigration.

Damon’s character, a factory worker on overpopulated (and slummy) Earth who receives an accidental lethal dose of radiation, can only be saved by obtaining medical treatment on the space station orbiting Earth, which happens to house all the rich 1 percenters. To get there, though, he makes a deal to take up arms and steal (evil) government secrets. While set in the future, critics — and director Neill Blomkamp himself — agree the movie reflects life in the present.

OK, let’s review. Is America increasingly a place where there are haves and have-nots, where the middle class is disappearing, and where class warfare is becoming a way of life? Is there not a major health care crisis, where people now value health care above owning a home, where millions are uninsured, and where those with “money’ are much more likely to receive high-quality care? And do we not have a raging debate about immigration, from open borders to security walls to amnesty for illegals?

So why all the criticism for a movie that asks legitimate questions? Is the right so scared of its own ideas that it can’t defend them, rather than solely resorting to attacks?

Apparently.

Maybe if Republicans stopped their unproductive bashing and offered positive solutions, while holding their own accountable for their (many) mistakes, movies like “Elysium’ wouldn’t hit so close to home.

Is universal health care the answer? Of course not. But it’s not productive, nor accurate, to just blame President Barack Obama (and “liberal’ Hollywood) for these problems, as both parties are equally guilty in driving us to where we stand today.

When the Republicans under George W. Bush had six years and all the power to fix these things, they chose to do nothing. No free-market solutions to health care, no reining in the greed of insurance companies, no border walls, no rational solution for the millions of illegals beyond the insane “deport them all’ line. No overhaul of the immoral tax system, no energy independence, and no reduction in massive government spending, all of which would have led to a more prosperous and exponentially larger middle class — and a vast reduction in the us-against-them mentality that so many Americans now harbor toward their fellow countrymen.

Like it or not, these problems are upon us and they’re only getting worse. If it takes a movie like “Elysium’ to finally make us think about and, hopefully, deal with them, then so be it.

The right would be wise to embrace this movie, engaging in constructive dialogue, rather than cowering behind worn-out attack lines that only serve to marginalize their worthy ideas.

Agree with director Blomkamp’s themes or not, it is commendable that he has put out yet another movie (“District 9′ and its take on the horrors of apartheid was his first blockbuster) that makes us take a hard look at the future. And that future — our future — is now.

Engery Independence Beats Terrorism

By Chris Freind

Let’s play Connect The Dots. How are the following related?

1. The U.S. military launches an emergency air evacuation of diplomatic personnel in Yemen, while two dozen other embassies and consulates throughout the Arab world remain closed because of major terror threats.

2. Protesters at a Chevron oil refinery chant, “Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Fossil fuels have got to go!” as they continue to demand the death of drilling and the proposed KeystoneXL Pipeline.

3. The Associated Press reports that nearly four of five Americans are at risk of poverty, joblessness and reliance on welfare, mainly due to manufacturing jobs going overseas.

Since these problems are certainly not new, their connections should be fairly obvious. But try telling that to the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, and yes, both Bush administrations. Because none of them had, or have, a clue as to how they are related, let alone how to respond. And the clock is ticking.

It’s not a stretch to say America is hated throughout much of the Middle East. Not by everyone, of course, but by a large number of extremists hell-bent on blowing us up, and the even larger silent majority that sheds no tears when their compatriots are successful. Since many of these folks have the tacit permission of their governments (and funding via our petro dollars) to engage in jihad, they are most definitely a threat. So why don’t we just leave, instead of subjecting our citizens to the constant threat of annihilation, as is the case in Yemen right now?

Simple. America is totally dependent on the Middle East oil barons for its black gold. Translation: Because of our choices, we’re now stuck in the most dangerous place on Earth for the foreseeable future.

But why? Why are we so dependent on foreign oil when, far and away, America has reserves larger than those of the entire Middle East combined?

— Ask the Chevron protesters, to whom oil is a dirty word and “alternative energies” are the only way to go — which would be great if all 300 million Americans biked everywhere and lived in thatched huts with no power.

— Ask George H.W. Bush, who signed the moratorium on offshore drilling. And ask W., who, despite massive Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and an approval rating in the ’90s after the 9/11 attacks, refused to open the ANWR in Alaska to drilling. And who, along with oilman Dick Cheney, took seven years to call for dad’s oil drilling ban to be lifted — which the by-then Democratic Congress denied.

— Ask President Obama, who still has not green-lighted KeystoneXL and who, beholden to the selfish and often extreme environmental lobby, has seen drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands/waters decrease.

— And ask Mitt Romney, who advocated “energy independence,” but couldn’t articulate — at all — what that would mean to the average American, much less the overall economy. And, while you’re at it, ask the Republican House, which continues to do nothing but offer empty rhetoric on the issue.

Our refusal to maximize drilling for oil and natural gas, combined with Middle Eastern volatility, has driven energy prices through the roof. Whereas gasoline, diesel and jet fuel should retail for under $2 a gallon — and yes, that is a “pipe” dream, as more domestic drilling and pipelines would make that dream come true — we are instead bent over the barrel, faced with the impossible task of trying to make an economy boom while energy prices are double what they should be.

And guess what happens when energy costs soar? Manufacturing jobs disappear. It’s that simple — hence the AP report’s dire picture of America.

However, anyone who says we can’t compete with cheaper overseas labor is dead wrong. True, we will never have the lowest employment cost, but if we make use of the world’s cheapest energy right at our disposal, we’ll have something better.

Low-cost energy not only eliminates the significant expense of importing goods from around the world, but dramatically lessens domestic distribution costs — the rising economic tide that lifts all boats.

The most expensive aspect of manufacturing is energy cost. When that number is low, more plants open, existing ones thrive, Americans get hired at substantial wages, and ancillary businesses boom, employing millions. If energy is expensive — and oil over $100/barrel ain’t cheap — it all tanks. Costs to make and move goods skyrocket, inflation spikes and productivity takes a hit. Coupled with America having one of the highest corporate income tax rates on the planet, companies either raise prices, go under or leave.

A CEO who packs up and ships out overseas isn’t unpatriotic, but is often doing the only thing possible to save the company. For the most part, business leaders don’t move offshore because they want to, but because they have to, compliments of a government that refuses to make the right choices and citizens who don’t demand otherwise.

Yet, there is a blueprint for success, as Proctor & Gamble’s large manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania illustrates. After realizing there was a treasure trove of clean Marcellus Shale natural gas sitting under its feet, P&G drilled several wells and is now energy self-sufficient for the reported 800 billion kilowatt-hours it requires, enough to power 40,000 homes.

Companies that can reduce or eliminate millions in energy bills can quickly jump-start the economy by expanding manufacturing operations and hiring more Americans, which moves folks away from the poverty line and off the welfare and unemployment rolls. Tragically, the P&G example is the exception rather than the rule, even though America’s resources could make the dream of cheap energy a reality for millions of businesses.

The situation in Yemen, along with the sobering AP report, should be a wake-up call to all Americans. The need to drill responsibly, but drill nonetheless, must be the No. 1 issue from this point forward. More than anything, energy independence would make the economy boom while protecting our security at home and abroad.

Alternative energies are certainly welcome in that equation, provided two things:  They are cost-effective, and  they can meet our needs. But since most of the anti-oil crowd is also fervently anti-nuclear (which accounts for 20 percent of U.S. energy), they need to do a whole lot better than the tired old “solar and wind” line while trashing fossil fuels.

Leaving Yemen isn’t a bad thing; it’s a good start. So bring our boys home, fire up the drills and let’s get America making things again.

Otherwise, we all better learn to speak Arabic.

Riley Cooper And The Pompous Who Judge To Feel Holy

By Chris Friend

Philadelphia Eagle Riley Cooper really stepped in it.

He
uttered one of the most vile, racist, and derogatory slurs out there,
one that not only hurts a particular ethnic group, but “….
dampens the aspirations of (its) people.”

And here’s the
thing. I guarantee Cooper said this word many, many more
times than just once.

No amount of sensitivity training will
prevent him from saying it again. And that’s the way it should be,
for he is not alone, as millions from New York to Dallas to yes, even
Washington, utter this word around the kitchen table and even in
public.

“Redskins.”

Now known just as the “R”
word.

That’s not a joke, as 10 United States congressmen, in
demanding that the Washington Redskins name be changed, actually
wrote “…Native Americans throughout the country consider the
R-word a racial, derogatory slur akin to the N-word among
African-Americans.”

And right there, in black and white, is
precisely why we cannot move ahead with race relations, and why,
whenever a racial controversy erupts, it not only isn’t handled
with an appropriate response, but often provokes a counter-productive
backlash.

Enter the Riley Cooper saga.

On a fateful night in June, Cooper made two mistakes. First, he
actually attended a Kenny Chesney concert. That alone is cause for
concern.

But then came the big one, when he was caught on
video having an altercation with a security guard and using the
N-word. Not good. Not good at all.

True, he was not on the
clock, per se, but when you are a public figure, you need to
inherently understand that the clock never stops. It’s not Riley
Cooper the private citizen saying that slur, but Cooper the Eagle,
Cooper the NFL player. And yes, Cooper the white guy in a league
that is two-thirds black.

Can’t let that go, and can’t
chalk that up to anything but what it is: a major mistake.

But
here’s the bigger problem. While appropriate consequences have
been administered – fines, public humiliation, shame and even a
bounty placed on his head – that isn’t enough to some. They want
more. A lot more.

And to what end? Should he really be
suspended or even kicked out of the league, as some are advocating,
or arrested for hate speech, just for saying a bad word, offensive
as it may be? Have we really gotten to the point – where speech will
get you fired, thrown in jail, or worse?

Does he really need
“sensitivity training,” as he will undergo? And honestly, does
anyone actually believe that will help in any way? Of course not,
but it’s all part of the charade, the “feel good” measures we
employ in the name of improving race relations, all while doing
absolutely nothing of substance to identify, let alone solve, the
real racial problems.

It has gotten so preposterous that the
paternalistic services of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth
Williams have been requested to teach Cooper, and everyone else, a
lesson. (Glad to see he has nothing better to do with his time in
crime-plagued Philly.) Yes, insane as it sounds, the Eagles asked
Williams to recommend charities and community-service programs that
could benefit from Cooper’s time (and money). The D.A. will also be
in touch with other city officials to do “what they can do to
help (Cooper) and to use this as a teachable moment, not only for
him, but maybe for the city as a whole to deal with racism and
insensitive language.”

Sound like a guy running for mayor
soon?

Frankly, the last thing we need is the City of
Philadelphia telling anyone what to do, how to act and what to say.
God help us.

Worse are those who not only think he isn’t being punished
enough, but that his apology isn’t genuine. When did we become so
damn judgmental and almighty? Who the hell are we to look into a
man’s soul and self-righteously proclaim that his sincerity isn’t
real? Who gave us the power – the “right” – to tear a person down
without end, to ruin a career, to destroy a life, to be so bold as to
turn a deaf ear to an apology – all because we don’t see and hear
exactly what we want?

His apology was sincere enough for many
if not all of his black teammates – who, by the way, showed immense
class and dignity in how they handled this affair – yet it’s not
good enough for those in the cheap seats.

That arrogance is
astounding, and ironically, vastly diminishes the really important
point.

The amount of overkill on Cooper, who you would think
ran a lynch mob, is totally backfiring. Many Americans, who would
normally feel that what he said was wrong and needed swift action –
so long as the punishment fit the crime – have now become so turned
off by the piling-on that they feel empathy for Cooper. Instead of
his words being wrong, plain and simple, the collective mentality is
becoming, “OK. No big deal. Enough already. Play ball.”

Is
Riley Cooper a racist? Absolutely no idea, though his teammates say
he isn’t. Either way, his words are a big deal. But because we
can’t see the forest through the trees, unable to focus on what is
important, Cooper is increasingly viewed as a victim. A valuable
lesson is lost, but personal agendas (however warped they are) are
being accomplished.

That arrogance isn’t limited to
race, but increasingly prevalent throughout society.

Look at
the cavalcade of politicians and commentators publicly demanding that
Anthony Weiner withdraw from the New York mayoral race because his
lewd “sexting” while a congressman continues to haunt him.

Last
time I checked, we live in a democracy, and the only ones who get to
decide who stays and who goes into public office are the people.
Period. Not blowhards, and not political hacks. Just the people. If
Weiner leaves the race, that should be his, and only his, decision.
But once again, we see the audacity of “leaders” who think they,
and not the people, know what is best.

And what better example
of a counter-productive backlash than the election of former KKK
leader David Duke to the Louisiana state Legislature in 1989? Duke,
with his racist past, was all but certain to lose, but President
George Bush, Ronald Reagan, and the Republican National Committee
stuck their noses where they didn’t belong – in other people’s
business – and effectively scolded anyone who would vote for Duke.
The result? David Duke won, not because the people were bigots, but
because they resented overkill and outside interference.

Heap Screamin’ Red Over Redskins

By Chris Freind

 

Life is good.

Summer is in full swing, the Trayvon/Zimmerman soap opera is finally fading away, government is probably reading only half our emails now, and the excitement of football is in the air.

Most important, though, is that America apparently has solved all of its problems. Otherwise, how could you possibly explain the fact that a cadre of congressman — both Republican and Democrat — recently sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, every league team, and Redskins sponsor FedEx urging them — demanding, actually — that the Redskins name be changed because it was so racially demeaning to Indians. Oops. Native Americans. Sorry.

Really? That’s the most
dominant issue consuming our elected officials? Granted, if we had an
Indian nickel for every boneheaded thing Congress does, we’d all be
millionaires. But those congressmen need to be scalped for this one, and
publicly admonished until they turn red-faced with embarrassment.

This
is no time for peace pipes. We must, without reservation, not just hold
down the fort but go to war with those riding roughshod over hallowed
American traditions — fighting the people who love nothing more than to
chop away at things no one actually finds offensive. As with most issues
though, we lack a political chief brave enough to tackle this type of
political correctness. The biggest irony? If a leader painted this
picture as the insanity that it is, it wouldn’t be his last stand, but a
feather in his cap, because the vast majority of Americans recognize
that using Indian names isn’t offensive, but complimentary.

“Native Americans throughout the country consider the `R-word’ a racial, derogatory slur akin to the `N-word’ among African-Americans or the `W-word’ among Latinos,” the congressional letter states.

OK, a
little help on this one. Members of the United States Congress honestly
think “Redskin” is akin to the N-word? That may not be the stupidest
thing ever said, but it’s definitely top three. And the “W-word?” What
the hell is that? Since there are a whole lot more derogatory names for
Latinos, if you actually have to pause, pondering what the big “W” is
(and I’m still not 100 percent sure), I’d say these folks are making up a
problem where one doesn’t exist.

But of course, this insanity
doesn’t end with the Redskins (though they seem to have it the worst, as
they are also in a legal battle to maintain protection of their
Redskins trademark. Thankfully, Snyder has, to this point, resisted the
pressure and pledged to keep the name intact.

A recent debacle
unfolded in New York as the Mets, who had worked for months with the
American Indian Community House in planning a Native American Heritage
day at the ballgame, abruptly canceled the event because — are you ready
for this? — they were playing the Atlanta Braves! What playing the
Braves has to do with canceling the event is any rational person’s
guess, as is how anyone could find the festivities offensive in the
first place.

A Mets spokesman said “… our multicultural days and
nights are celebratory versus political in nature,” though it remains
unclear how Native American Heritage day is political. The result? No
singing, no dancing, no Indians. So instead of celebrating a spectacular
culture, opening the eyes of thousands to Native American traditions in
a positive way, the people got nothing, and the Indians got tomahawked
again.

While political correctness chalks up another win, how is that helpful in any way?

And
it’s not just sports where this warped mentality is taking hold, but
the classroom. Walk into any kindergarten during reading time, and you
will see the children gathered ‘round the teacher, all sitting
“crisscross-applesauce” on the floor. That used to be called
“Indian-style,” but the PC gods had a pow-wow and determined that such a
term was derogatory and racist, despite not a single child ever saying,
“I sat Indian-style today, so I hate Native Americans.”

Even
worse than the assault on Indian names is when otherwise intelligent
people give in so easily. St. John’s University was, and is, a top-notch
school that had never been associated with institutional racism or
bigotry of any kind, yet changed its team name from “Redmen” to “Red
Storm.” And if you’re going to cave, at least come up with a name that
has meaning. Outside of the red storm on Jupiter (or is it Uranus?),
what is a “Red Storm?”

Has it dawned on anyone to actually ask
the forgotten people — aka the Indians themselves — if they feel
offended? That doesn’t often happen, because when it does, turns out
many tribes welcome the use of Native American names. A Sports
Illustrated poll found that 83 percent of Native Americans have no
problem with the use of Indian names and mascots for sports teams.

But
that didn’t stop the deity known as the NCAA from imposing mandates
several years ago to jettison Indian names, threatening severe sanctions
for any school that kept names, logos, and mascots, as they were deemed
“hostile and abusive.” And if a university didn’t play ball? They would
be banned from hosting post-season championships and face forfeiture of
games, among other penalties.

Where does the craziness end?
What’s next? Animal rights groups demanding Penn State eliminate the
Nittany Lion because felines feel offended being identified with Jerry
Sandusky? Don’t laugh, because that’s exactly the type of political
correctness driving our country.

How can we expect to move forward as people when all we ever do is search for things which divide, rather than unite, us?

Were
Indians considered low man on the totem pole, stripped of their land
and human dignity — sometimes brutally — by early Americans? Without
question, as atrocities committed against them were unspeakable. No
reparations and no apology can ever fully right those wrongs.

But
America, despite the errors of its past, has shown the most remarkable
resilience of any nation in history not just to learn from its mistakes,
but to make things right and yes, better, for future generations. We
have seen triumphs for the descendants of the Irish and Italian
immigrants who faced major discrimination; the Chinese who built the
railroads under deplorable conditions; the Japanese interned during
World War II; the blacks who were enslaved; and yes, Native Americans.

Rather
than needlessly reopening old wounds, maybe those pushing political
correctness to satisfy their own personal agendas should take a hard
look at the everlasting tribute to Native Americans in the United
States. What more of an honor could there be to the Indian values of
hard work, conservation, respect of traditions, and pride than the fact
that 28 states are named for Indian tribes or words as well as numerous
professional sports teams (and at one time scores of colleges), and
countless high schools and businesses?

It’s time to stop this foolishness, for if we don’t, it will not end with the Indians. Watch out, Fightin’ Irish.

Chris Freind: Duchess Kate: May we have another?

By Chris Freind

Dear Duchess Kate,

Congratulations on your new baby — and our new hope!

We know you have your hands full, but at the risk of sounding anxious, please do us a favor — have another child. Quickly. And two or three more after that. Perhaps more than anyone else on the planet, you hold the key, by your position and charisma, to lead us out of our literal death spiral. The negative birthrates of Europe, Japan, and yes, America, have placed us on a collision course with the end of an empire — not colonialism, but the greatest, most benevolent civilizations the world has ever known. Not to heap any more pressure on you, but freedom, respect for the rule of law, and the spirit of nationalism hang in the balance.

Oh, in case you’re having trouble agreeing on a name, Prince Christopher has a nice ring to it.

Sincerely,

The West

Interestingly, the bankruptcy of Detroit and the new royal baby — assuming William and Kate are not one-and-done-ers — are interrelated. If the royal couple can inspire those in negative-birthrate countries to once again go forth and procreate, tragedies like the one in Detroit could be avoided in the future.

Detroit, like most big American cities (and many European countries), has been horrifically managed for decades. As despair increased due to lack of jobs, productive workers left for greener pastures, such as Texas and Arizona, where job growth has been explosive. Those left behind, from retirees to those unwilling to start a family (thus no future workers), could not afford the escalating pension obligations and other costs that always accompany the promise of a “guaranteed” social safety net.

The result? Collapse.

It’s no different in Western nations whose economies are hanging by a thread — tragedies of their own making because of ill-advised cultural, economic and political decisions. As a result, birthrates have been steadily plummeting, and all have fallen well below the 2.1 children per family threshold necessary just to achieve zero population growth.

For nations in this precarious situation, there are three courses of action, but only one true solution:

1. They can import labor, typically from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This massive immigration flow, particularly in Europe, produces a destabilizing effect in those countries because most permanent foreign workers have no desire to assimilate and become “European.” Instead, they often view Euro-culture with outright disdain, despite enjoying freedoms most would never even dream about in their home countries. It is similar, but not quite as pronounced — yet — in America, with millions of illegal immigrants swearing allegiance to countries other than the United States.

The underlying tensions between indigenous populations and the workers they import continue to simmer just below the surface, occasionally bursting through, but for the most part, held in check by misguided labels of xenophobia. Too often, political correctness is employed to assuage the “offended” immigrants, swinging the pendulum unfairly away from Europeans and their hallowed traditions and cultural norms. Adding fuel to this “Balkanization” powder keg is when relatively well-heeled immigrants living in Europe engage in terrorism, such as when they bomb trains in London and Madrid.

If this policy continues unabated, Europe will either fade away without so much as a whimper, becoming unrecognizable in fifty years as its indigenous population declines by several hundred million, or it will engage in an ultra-nationalistic backlash of immense proportions, with bloodshed on a grand scale. European history all but guarantees it.

2. Countries such as Japan can continue to abhor immigration while starving itself to death. Japan has the most elderly population on Earth, and the most negative birthrate, yet absolutely eschews immigration, for mostly cultural reasons.

So a country that in the mid-19th century spectacularly entered the world stage, eventually becoming the second-largest economy on Earth in 1990 (despite being smaller than California), is now a sad shadow of itself, with half as many children than in 1950, yet having eight times as many senior citizens.

Anyone care to look at how Japan is faring? While the tsunami/nuclear issues haven’t helped, Japan has been significantly diminishing for decades, a pace which is only accelerating.

3. Countries can take a hard look at their anti-family policies and correct them. And if dynamic world leaders like William and Kate choose to make family life and having children their priority issues, the situation can be reversed. But both must go hand-in-hand, as neither one by itself can be successful.

And it’s no easy task, as there are many reasons for negative birthrates.

While not apologizing for capitalism, for it is the fairest economic system on earth, it is inarguable that too many in the West have succumbed to materialistic gluttony, coupled with “it’s all about me” and “do whatever makes you feel good” attitudes.

Such mentalities are anathema to getting married, having children, and being diligent parents, for it is much easier to go with the flow without the commitment and cost — aka “baggage” — of children.

And since many countries offer lavish, “guaranteed,” government-funded retirement plans, the incentive for having children to eventually take care of the parents is washed away.

Yet, there are millions who want several children, but are forced to have none or just one because of immoral tax codes. And make no mistake; when the government takes more than half of what people and businesses earn, even from the grave via inheritance taxes, that is absolutely immoral.

If crushing taxes were reduced, placing a higher level of income back where it belongs — with the people — more families could survive on one salary, allowing them to afford their dream of a larger family and reversing the negative birth trend.

Healthy populations in Western nations will produce more than they consume, and become a rising tide that lifts all boats. But it’s not just lost productivity that is a casualty of negative birthrates, but the loss of those who will never exist: Brilliant scientists who will never find a cure for cancer or discover other planets; teachers who will never inspire their students to believe that the sky’s the limit; doctors who will never comfort and cure their patients; and artists who will never leave their audiences breathless, searching for words to describe out-of-this-world performances that bring out the humanity in all of us.

It is inevitable that nationalistic spirit dies when a nation experiences population decline. While nationalism has unfortunately become a dirty word for some, to be beaten back at every turn, it is nonetheless mandatory for the cohesiveness of a people. In the same way that the Olympics bring out the very best in folks, where love of country and pride in one’s national identity makes for peaceful rivalry, hearty camaraderie and great sportsmanship, nationalism on a political scale drives the engine of innovation, creation and competition. And that’s the way it should be.

But as the spirit of optimism disintegrates, a new threat rises in the East, as enemies sworn to oppose freedom multiply by the millions, menacing what is left of the West. One can only hope that smarter leaders will emerge, unshackling the bonds holding population growth hostage. And with that, a royal family that is royally large.

Duchess, congratulations, and please keep them coming!

Medicaid Expansion Failure A Win For PA

Medicaid Expansion Failure A Win For PA
By Matthew J. Brouillette

Editor’s note: A version of this commentary previously appeared on Forbes.com

When is the most humane decision the one that seems just the opposite? In refusing to expand the state’s Medicaid program, Gov. Corbett and the General Assembly have been vilified as cold and uncaring. But despite the critics, both the economic and moral arguments are on the side of those seeking to reform Medicaid, not those pushing the expansion of a broken program.

President Obama’s government health insurance overhaul, the Affordable Care Act, calls for states to expand their Medicaid programs to those up to 133 percent of the poverty line—about $15,000 for an individual or $31,000 for a family of four. But even without expansion, Pennsylvania’s program already consumes 30 percent of the state budget and is one of the most generous in the nation.

Expanding Medicaid would add close to a million new beneficiaries, resulting in fully one-quarter of the state’s population being eligible for coverage. The cost to Pennsylvania’s taxpayers through 2022 could reach $5 billion. That’s enough to give any governor or state legislature pause. It’s no surprise, then, that Pennsylvania isn’t alone in its opposition to Medicaid expansion.

So far, 20 other states agree that expansion is not a good solution for their most vulnerable citizens, despite the federal government’s offer to pay all associated costs for the first two years. What makes turning down “free” federal money so popular? Look no further than the strings attached: the results of the Medicaid program themselves.

Decades of academic research show the program has consistently failed the working poor. From greater chances of cancer recurrence, to higher in-hospital mortality rates for strokes, heart attacks, and pneumonia, to limited options for many medical procedures, Medicaid has proven unable to provide patients the care that they desperately need and deserve.

One in three doctors won’t even accept new Medicaid patients at all—that’s the difference between what Medicaid does provide, a health insurance card, and what it doesn’t, quality health care.

Unfortunately, such a harsh indictment of Medicaid hasn’t stopped politicians on both sides of the aisle from pushing for expansion instead of pursuing reforms that will better serve the working and non-working poor. What’s luring them is that promise of “free” federal money.

This same promise has broken the wills of politicians in other states who at one time opposed either Medicaid expansion or the Affordable Care Act as a whole. This list includes Florida’s Governor Rick Scott as well as Ohio’s John Kasich, who have both gone to great lengths to push expansion in their states. But once state lawmakers saw the plan’s costs and failures, as they have in Pennsylvania, they strongly resisted the push to expand the broken program.

Accepting this bribery is a short-sighted move, at best. States should have learned from experience that Washington doesn’t exactly set its promises in stone. President Obama has already proposed cutting the federal reimbursement of state Medicaid costs—twice. That was the very promise that enticed several states to jump on the expansion bandwagon in the first place.

If reimbursement rates are cut, state taxpayers will be footing the bill. Compounded with the ACA’s $500 billion price tag–a cost equal to $6,300 per family–the funding shortfall would hit every Pennsylvanian’s wallet.

But by refusing to expand Medicaid, states like Pennsylvania have helped reduce the federal deficit by an estimated $459 billion. To some, the promise of free federal funding may seem too good to pass up, but the suffering that people will endure from an expansion of Medicaid should not be so easily forgotten.

Thankfully, Pennsylvania lawmakers’ steadfast refusal to trade our neediest citizens and taxpayers for temporary political gain and uncertain federal cash is a sign that other difficult reforms may yet be on the horizon.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation.

Medicaid Expansion Failure A Win For PA

Boston Bombings: Coming to a City Near You?

By Hillel Zaremba

The tragic events of April 15 have justifiably reignited public concern about the nature and extent of domestic Islamist radicalization. Because the surviving bomber has been   Mirandized by the Obama Department of Justice, it may be years before we know exactly what or who prompted Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to take the lives of innocent Americans. However, there is enough evidence to indicate that the mosque with which they associated may have played a role in their descent into depravity. And if their mosque somehow influenced them in this fashion, do other mosques in America present a similar danger?

What  we know about the marathon bombers is that “The mosque attended by the two brothers (the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center-Cambridge [ISBCC]) …has been associated with other terrorism suspects [and] has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston…”

Both mosques are affiliated with the  Muslim American Society (MAS) an American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB ), the group that spawned Hamas and al-Qaeda and which seeks to   curtail civil liberties in Egypt and   impose Sharia on all.
None of these disturbing signs from Boston, which critics had pointed out for years, had any effect on the way these mosques were treated by those who run the Bay State. To the contrary, ISBCC was the recipient of tax-payer generosity in the form of a bargain-basement sale price on prime real estate for its new home as well as formal displays of friendship from  Gov. Deval Patrick and  Mayor Tom Menino.

Nor were prominent spiritual leaders of Boston concerned by statements of intolerance cloaked in the garb of “religious expression.” When Charles Jacobs, head of  Americans for Peace and Tolerance, brought inflammatory remarks by of one of the mosque’s leaders to the public’s attention, he was savaged by the Boston interfaith community, including  70 area rabbis.

Is such willful blindness unique to Boston or Massachusetts? Sadly, it is more likely that such attitudes are par for the course in every major American city with a sizable Muslim population. It certainly is the case in Philadelphia.

There are approximately 40 mosques in the City of Brotherly Love and its surrounding suburbs, as well as active branches of Brotherhood affiliates like CAIR and MSA, many of which are warmly welcomed by the  Mayor’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives (MOFI), as well as a prominent local NGO, the Interfaith Center of Greater Philadelphia (ICGP). No one in either office has apparently sought to inquire just whom they are partnering with.

“We don’t have to endorse you to work with you” stated MOFI’s interim director, Reverend Malcolm Byrd, when asked if he vetted his constituent Muslim groups. He explained further that one ought to “trust the government to have the objectivity and integrity to scope out involvement with a community.”

Tell that to the families of 29-year old Krystle Campbel or 8-year old Martin Richard who lost their lives to the Boston bombers.

Abby Stamelman Hocky, ICGP’s executive director, sounded a similar tune. Despite being presented with sourced documentation of some of her Muslim partners’ disturbing actions and pronouncements, the author was assured that if I really knew the leaders of these groups, I would be convinced they were, in truth, moderates.

To illustrate the dangerous naiveté that pervades the city’s elites, let us examine just one of the mosques that feels at home in Philadelphia, the Quba Institute (QI).

QI grew out of an  organization founded by an African-American convert to Islam named Muhammad Ezzaldeen, who spent time in Egypt in the 1930s at precisely the same moment when Egyptian Hassan al-Banna was establishing the global  Muslim Brotherhood. Ezzaldeen’s group eventually grew into, and was renamed, the International Muslim Brotherhood, Inc. (IMB ) in Philadelphia in 1949.

Is this shared name just a coincidence?

In the late 1960s, the Philadelphia-based IMB  forged partnerships with the Muslim Student Associations [MSA] of local Universities. The MSA is, according to a  document seized by authorities and entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends” sharing the common goal of teaching Muslims “that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

QI/IMB has  boasted about its association with two Brotherhood luminaries: Abu Sulaiman and Hassan Turabi. Saudi-born Abdul-Hamid Abu Sulaiman (var. “Sulayman”) is a founding member of the MB’s intellectual beachhead in the U.S., the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). From 1973-1979, he was the Secretary General of the Saudi-based  World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) which publishes anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Shi’ah literature; as the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, put it: “WAMY [is] the Saudi equivalent of the Hitler Youth: a hate-mongering, ultra-extremist group.”

The other Brotherhood bigwig associated with QI/IMB, Hassan Turabi, helped bring the National Islamic Front (NIF) to power in the Sudan and, once installed in power, established Sharia as the law of the land by force. Turabi was both a champion of Saddam Hussein and a longtime mentor, friend, and host to Osama bin Laden during his stay in Sudan.

According to Oliver Revell, the FBI’s former top counterterrorism official, “anybody who brings in Hassan Turabi is supporting terrorists.”

We do not know exactly when QI/IMB hosted Sulaiman and Turabi and perhaps current leadership has turned over a new leaf, making past connections irrelevant. Perhaps not.
Quba’s current spiritual leader and CEO,  Anwar Muhaimin was born in the U.S. but grew up in Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia with his brother, Anas (also an imam). When the brothers returned to America, they opened QI as a full-time non-public, non-licensed day school (pre-K-8)  eligible to receive public funds through the school district of Philadelphia.

The brothers have a reputation for moderation within the local “dialogue” community yet in a (now scrubbed) February 2010 Facebook posting, Anwar Muhaimin favorably cited an   article which dismissed claims that Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist, months after it had become clear that the Fort Hood massacre perpetrated by Major Nidal Hasan had been inspired in part by Awlaki’s teachings and correspondence. A few months later, in July 2010, the imam spoke up for reporter Octavia Nasr, whose support for Holocaust-denying and suicide bombing booster Ayatollah Fadlallah led to her dismissal by CNN. Other Facebook postings include condemnation of the Peter King congressional hearings on radical Islam (March 2011), characterization of researcher David Yerushalmi as a “White Supremacist” (April 2011) and letting his Facebook “friends” know that “Nationalists pose [a] bigger threat than al-Qaeda.”

Should we then take seriously brother Anas Muhaimin’s mystified reaction to the March 2010 arrest of Sharif Mobley, who grew up and studied at QI/IMB? Mobley was arrested in Yemen for ties to Anwar al-Awlaki and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. American law enforcement officials said they had been keeping their eyes on him for some time. When questioned by reporters, Anas  declared that he had “strongly discouraged him from going to Yemen. I told him Yemen was very, very unstable.”

Muhaimin’s protestations of puzzlement sound strikingly similar to those   uttered by ISBCC’s leaders after the Boston bombings. In the face of public revulsion and subsequent media scrutiny, mosque leaders profess to be as clueless as the next guy as to where these young men could have picked up their ideas. Perhaps they need to take a closer look at their own teachings.
An older version of the QI/IMB mosque’s website is illustrative. Patrons of Masjid Quba are told to “specifically reject terrorism as method for forwarding any Islamic or Muslim cause” but there is one important caveat: QI/IMB’s members can engage in jihad al-saif (armed warfare) “in the context of self-defense or guarding the sacred, holy lands of Islam” (author’s emphasis).

What constitutes the “sacred, holy lands of Islam” is open to some interpretative leeway. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch considers the entire state of Israel “sacred, holy lands of Islam,” legitimating its murderous attacks on innocent civilians on that basis. Osama bin Laden justified his attacks against the U.S. because he viewed the American presence in Saudi Arabia as an infidel occupation of “of the Two Holy Places.”

We  now know that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev viewed his crime as standing up for Muslims all over the world (“When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims”). In the Islamist view, all Muslims are part of a universal ummah and any action taken against Muslims anywhere becomes a provocation for retaliation by a fellow-Muslim anywhere else.

Which view dominates in the confines of the Quba Institute or the other Muslim worship centers of Philadelphia and other American cities? Do Muslims in these places truly learn to consider their fellow citizens as brothers and sisters regardless of their faith? Or do they adhere to their prophet’s injunction – “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends!” (Qur’an 5:51)

When asked to help apply Justice Brandeis’ “disinfectant of sunshine” to all area faith-groups by asking them to open their doors, sermons and curricula to public scrutiny, Philadelphia’s Interfaith Center demurred, citing more pressing issues. Whether an examination of what is taught and preached in area mosques would produce a greater sense of comfort or its opposite remains to be seen. But greater transparency is long overdue, and may help ensure that there will be fewer Tsarnaevs lurking in our midst.

For the record, in April 2010, Muhaimin responded favorably to an  article repudiating al-Awlaki by fellow Philadelphian Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad.

Hillel Zaremba is associate director of  Islamist Watch,
a project of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, which seeks to
combat the ideas and institutions of non-violent Islamism in the United
States and throughout the West.

Boston Bombings: Coming to a City Near You?

Boston Bombings: Coming to a City Near You?

Race Relations Worse Than Ever In USA

OK, let’s get it out of the way. I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman fiasco. So to those who felt entitled to a “guilty” verdict, I am undoubtedly insensitive, heartless and uncaring. Oh, I almost forgot the most important, albeit vastly overused labels: Racist and bigoted.

Spitballs off a battleship.

The real tragedy that has been lost in all the white noise surrounding the verdict is the true victim: Race relations in America, as our goal of a color-blind society now stands at its lowest point in modern American history.

Never mind that the jury did the only rational thing — find Zimmerman not guilty — and that in doing so actually followed that ever-eroding thing called the law (read the manslaughter statute — Zimmerman may have used poor judgment, but he clearly did not intentionally commit an act that caused the death of Trayvon).

It’s an indisputable fact that had this been black-on-black or white-on-white, there never would have even been a trial. And equally true, a national media starved for ratings, and advocacy groups desperately trying to affirm a relevance they never had, created this entire debacle on the false premise that it was all about “race.”

Because some Trayvon supporters thought they were entitled to a guilty verdict, regardless of facts or legal statute, anything less was a travesty of justice, racist, and a tacit endorsement for rioting and death threats against Zimmerman.

Welcome to an America that revels in its path of racial regression.

There is no better illustration of how badly we botch race relations than the differences in the Paula Deen and Trayvon Martin cases.

On the one hand, we demonize Paula Deen for words she was honest enough to admit using years ago, mainly in the context of jokes. It’s bad enough Americans have lost their sense of humor in favor of getting offended by absolutely everything, but honestly, who among us — of all colors — hasn’t used or laughed at “racial” words in jokes (including black comedians who openly use the “N” word). Does doing so make one a bigot? Of course not. Is Paula Deen by extension a racist? Based on everything we know about her, no. While some of what she said clearly isn’t defensible, the piling-on reaction of talking heads and gutless companies who know nothing of loyalty and forgiveness was disgraceful.

There is a very simple reason we took down Paula Deen in the name of “race relations.” Because it was easy. That’s it. No hard work or effort was required to put her on a dartboard and destroy such an easy target. Those who did so chalked up a “win” in their personal agenda column, lying to themselves and the public that it was done in the name of improving race relations. In reality, such actions set the whole debate backwards.

And yet, we barely mention that virtually every big- city mayor and police chief nationwide felt it necessary to urge calm, pleading with Trayvon supporters not to riot and incite bloodshed in the event of a “not guilty” verdict. All for a case, by the way, where most people, both white and black, didn’t have the foggiest idea of Florida law and how it, and nothing else, dictated the outcome.

The inconsistencies are mindboggling, but not surprising.

Race relations had a rocky road in this country, but as we look back, it was clearly a right-versus-wrong struggle, a fight where the oppressed eventually triumphed. Through their perseverance, and the support of millions of fair-minded whites, blacks ultimately achieved legal equality — a monumental feat realized more quickly than even the most optimistic could have hoped.

And yet now, by our own choosing, the pendulum has swung back. We are separate once more. And our nation is divided again — ironically, after it had come such a long way to heal the wounds of the past.

Unconscionably, too many on all sides accept that situation, and even embrace it.

In all the recent media coverage, was there any mention of the thousands of blacks killed each year in urban war zones, primarily by other blacks? Or of the staggeringly high percentage that die, or will go to prison, or be on parole or probation, while still so young? Was there a conversation about what could be done to reverse that trend?

Was there any serious debate about why our American cities are in such a tragic state, where murder, violence, drugs, homelessness, poverty, crushing taxes and horrendous education kill all hope and create a bitter divide between the haves and the have-nots? And about how, despite all the billions spent and feel-good reforms, things are only getting worse? Were the roots of these problems discussed? Any viable solutions offered?

Was there any leader willing to look at the big picture, unafraid to incur the wrath of the loudmouthed, name-calling brigades, to point out that Black Caucuses and Black Parents’ Weekends at colleges do not celebrate diversity and culture, but serve only to drive a sharp wedge between people — people who should, at this point in our history, view themselves as just “Americans” — with no hyphens?

None to all. But as long as we rally around “race cases” that serve no meaningful purpose in advancing race relations, that’s all that matters.

Too many of all colors look the other way when race is injected, fearful of being labeled if an opinion is expressed. And for good reason, as Bill Cosby knows all too well. After a speech several years ago in which he expressed blunt opinions, though with noble intent, about improving the state of young blacks, he was vilified by black leaders and called an “Uncle Tom.” Blowhards got their airtime, and the status quo remained intact.

That’s not a solution. That’s a tragedy.

Things won’t change until our leaders, the media, and most of all, ourselves, demand it. But since we keep being treated to pictures of Trayvon as a boy instead of a man, and racist phrases such as Zimmerman being a “white Hispanic” (what does that even mean?), don’t expect progress anytime soon.

So long as America chooses to look through the black and white prism while ignoring the one that eliminates color, race relations and tension among fellow countrymen will continue to erode, erasing so much of what courageous leaders of the past, both black and white, achieved.

The only colors Martin Luther King, Jr. saw were red, white and blue. It’s truly pathetic that nearly half a century later, we now have made race relations brown. And that doesn’t refer to skin color.

Race Relations Worse Than Ever In USA

Race Relations Worse Than Ever In USA