Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for December, 2015

My first and only contact with Andrew Breitbart came at the Minneapolis Marriott Hotel in 2011. I walked in the door and Breitbart was standing there maybe 10 feet away. I was surprised that Breitbart took 4-5 minutes to talk with me because, in the grand scheme of things, I’m a nobody. That evening, Breitbart delivered a stirring speech in which he talked about the need to get rid of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate because, in his words, “if you can’t defend liberty and freedom, you suck.” Here’s the video of that keynote speech:

I wrote this article because I couldn’t stand the thought of hearing John Nolte tell us that Donald Trump was “the great truth-teller of 2015.” That’s such total BS, it stinks from Philadelphia to San Francisco and from Minneapolis to Houston.

This morning, Diana West stinks up the place again with this article by saying that we should “rally around Donald Trump.” Here’s the heart of West’s case for rallying to Trump:

The enthusiasm real people (as opposed to media and #GOPSmartSet) have shown for Trump and his paradigm-shattering wall is something new and exciting on the political scene. So is the “yuge” sigh of relief. Someone sees the nation bleeding out and wants to stanch the flow. Yes, we can (build a wall). From that day forward, it has been Trump, dominating the GOP primary process and setting all of the potentially restorative points of the agenda, compelling the other candidates to address them, and the MSM, too. Blasting through hard, dense layers of “political correctness” with plain talk that shocks, Trump has set in motion very rusty wheels of reality-based thinking, beginning a long-overdue honest-to-goodness public debate about the future of America — or, better, whether there will be a future for America. That debate starts at the border, too.

There’s a major flaw with Trump as commander-in-chief. The Constitution only works if it governs moral people. Mr. Trump isn’t a moral person. He’s repeated said dishonest things, then insisted that he hadn’t said the dishonest things that were videotaped. Think about his disgusting statement about Carly Fiorina’s face. The first time he was challenged about it at a debate, Trump insisted that he hadn’t disparaged Mrs. Fiorina.

Think about Mr. Trump’s statement that Megyn Kelly had mistreated him and that she had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever”, then explaining that he wasn’t suggesting that he’d been mistreated by Ms. Kelly because she was menstruating.

Anyone that will follow a person as morally deficient as Mr. Trump isn’t trustworthy. Ms. West, however well-intentioned she is, has essentially said that we should follow a highly immoral person. That’s something I won’t do. I’ve voted for people that I didn’t agree with. I won’t vote for immoral people.

That’s why I won’t rally around Mr. Trump.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Christ, prophesied by the prophet Micah:

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.

O Little Town of Bethlehem:

The Christmas story — Micah’s prophesy fulfilled Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, verses 4-16:

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. 15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

Away in a Manger:

Joseph takes Mary, Jesus, to Egypt — Matthew 2:13-14

13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” 14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

O Come All Ye Faithful:

Tom Coughlin, the long-time head coach of the New York Giants, is one of the most decent men in the NFL. When he speaks, I listen because he’s earned that respect. I can’t agree with him about what he said about the Giants-Carolina game.

I agree with Coach Coughlin when he said that Odell Beckham “has been singled out for his actions.” I don’t agree with him rationalizing his player’s behavior. That’s what he was doing when he said that there “were factors involved starting in pregame, which are well documented, which indicate there was an attempt to provoke him. He was provoked, he was out of control, he was wrong, no doubt about that but…there are two sides to this not just one.”

Josh Norman got fined because he was the player that got hit by Beckham, who got a 10-yard running start before hitting Norman in the head at high speed. Norman’s actions were a clear violation of the rules. Beckham’s actions could’ve caused a number of different brain injuries to Norman. At no point did Norman try to spear Beckham.

That’s why Beckham’s suspension should be upheld.

By now, everyone’s seen this video of Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham spearing Carolina’s Josh Norman:

Monday, the NFL suspended Beckham from Sunday night’s game against the Minnesota Vikings. The NFLPA immediately appealed the suspension. That appeal is happening literally as I type this. James Thrash, a former NFL wide receiver hired by the NFL and the NFLPA, is conducting the hearing.

I’m betting that the NFLPA’s chief argument will be that he should be fined, not suspended. If that’s the NFLPA’s chief argument, that should be immediately rejected. Beckham’s actions a) were dangerous, b) were motivated by malice and c) could’ve resulted in a concussion that could’ve financially damaged Josh Norman.

Thus far, the comments have focused on how out-of-control Beckham was or how this isn’t typical of a Tom Coughlin-coached team. Both statements are indisputable. What hasn’t gotten talked about is the fact that Josh Norman will be a free agent this offseason. He’s considered the best cornerback in the league, which means he should expect a 5-6 year contract worth $15,000,000 a year, including at least $50,000,000 in guaranteed money.

Beckham’s hit could easily have given Norman a concussion. If he’d been concussed, all bets are off as to whether Norman would get the type of contract he’s expecting to get. While it’s likely that he’d still sign a lucrative contract, it’s quite possible that Norman would’ve gotten less lucrative contracts, costing him as much as $25,000,000.

That’s yet another reason why Odell Beckham must be suspended.

When I read this Our View editorial, my first reaction was that of disgust. The Times has tried to portray itself as object, as allies of ‘the people’. That façade disappeared when they wrote about setting a revote on the Tech-Apollo bonding referendum for this spring.

When they wrote that “a huge turnout expected in presidential election years may not enhance the chances for a school referendum to pass”, the Times essentially said that the right outcome was more important than giving the people the right to make informed decisions based on information gathered during meetings where the school board took questions and answered them on point. If the school board doesn’t answer the people’s questions directly, then citizens should continue to defeat the bonding referendum.

BTW, giving platitude-filled answers doesn’t constitute answering the citizens’ questions. That’s deception, which isn’t tolerated. The citizens have a right to know more of the specifics about the building that would be built with their money. When Barclay Carriar admitted that “80 percent of [the new Tech HS] isn’t going to be designed until after the referendum”, he essentially told voters that they should approve the bonds without knowing what they’d get.

Carriar is an “adviser with Ameriprise Financial and co-chair of Neighbors for School Excellence.” Think of adviser Neighbors for School Excellence as the DFL’s Vote Yes campaign organization for pushing the bonding referendum down voters’ throats. It’s important to remember that the bonding referendum was defeated in November because the School Board tried getting their referendum passed without answering voters’ questions.

That time, with the bonding referendum being the only thing on the ballot, voters rejected the proposal by an 8,460 to 7,393 vote margin. That 53.4% of the people voted to reject the proposal is a major upset.

Supporters and district campaign materials first cited a 10-year maintenance tab of $140 million at Tech. However, as the Election Day neared, credible evidence arose to question it. Yet supporters and even district leaders remain tight-lipped to this day about its validity.

That was a major nail in the School Board’s coffin. That wasn’t the only thing, though, that people questioned. They also questioned whether the buildings both needed to have a capacity of 1,800 students, especially considering the fact that there are 2,700 students in Tech and Apollo right now.

The chances of ISD742 increasing enrollment by one-third over the next 20-50 years is approximately zero. The school board tried convincing their constituents that writing the school board a blank check based on a platitude-filled campaign.

That measure went down in flames.

Apparently, Gov. Dayton thinks that legislatures can pass laws that override the U.S. Constitution. This AP article says that Gov. Dayton “is urging legislators to ban gun sales to people on terrorism watch lists.” Notice that there’s been a subtle shift from Hillary’s speech about the nexus between terrorism and the national no-fly list.

The article continues, saying that Gov. Dayton “concluded he doesn’t have the authority to restrict those sales on his own.” He’s right. He doesn’t have that authority. Instead, he wants “the Legislature to pass such a law”, adding that “people who aren’t allowed to board airplanes shouldn’t be able to purchase guns.”

That law would never be enforced because the judiciary would halt enforcement in a New York minute. One of the people on the no-fly list was the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Dan Cotton, (R-AR), said that Sen. Kennedy “was on the list and couldn’t get off for weeks, having his flights disrupted time after time.”

If Minnesota passed a law that prevented people on the no-fly list from buying guns, they’d pass legislation that violates a person’s civil rights. That’s unacceptable because it’s unconstitutional.

Gov. Dayton swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Stripping a person of their constitutional rights without due process is a direct violation of that oath.

Earlier this week, SCSU President Potter sent an email to the SCSU campus community saying that SCSU is “a university that values equity, diversity and inclusivity.” Former SCSU Aviation Professor Jeff Johnson is questioning that. More importantly, he’s putting his money where his mouth is:

Click the picture to enlarge.

There’s no doubt that President Potter talks a good game about equity, diversity and inclusivity. There’s little doubt that comparing his statements with his actions gives people ample justification to question President Potter’s integrity.

Especially disturbing is the fact that 5 students witnessed President Potter get in another student’s face during a meeting. That doesn’t reflect the priorities of “a university that values equity, diversity and inclusivity.”

One of the things I like about Greg Gutfeld is that he thinks things through. That isn’t to say that he’s a policy wonk. It just means he thinks about things through the lens of a citizen. He doesn’t think like a politician. Best of all, he doesn’t think like a Democratic politician. The monologue he delivered to open Saturday night’s show is an example of him not accepting the left’s conventional wisdom, aka CW.

Gutfeld opened his show saying “Radical Islam is like your constantly drunk and abusive neighbor. They’re always up to something. They soil your lawn. They try to mount your dog. And the threats — it’s like being stalked by a 7th century heckler. It’s time to reverse this abusive relationship. Counter radical Islamism with radical Americanism. Our scary reply to these rejects. First, let’s end the myth of the ISIS warrior. We see evidence of their cruelty but never of their prowess. They hit soft targets –the unarmed and scared –then they film it to soften up their next prey. These are not brave fighters, just bullies with machetes. What if they were truly challenged by the world’s greatest warriors? And before you say that that’s what ISIS wants, realize that that’s just an excuse for inertia and putting off the inevitable. Does that make me a warmonger? Sure. But it also makes me a global survival monger, too. And to be clear, our military is fine with this. It’s their life’s work to eliminate evil. You don’t feel guilty about the postman delivering your mail, then don’t feel bad about a Marine delivering death.”

Here’s the video of Gutfeld’s opening monologue:

After that monologue, the show shifted to the opening panel, which included Terry Schappert, a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces. Schappert said that ISIS aren’t great fighters when pitted against fierce warriors, noting that the only armed forces they face were Iraqi soldiers who’d been abandoned by the Obama administration. Schappert then said that ISIS wouldn’t be much of a fight if they faced “the violence that we’d like to visit upon them.”

Schappert made 3 other important points. The first point he made was that ISIS would eventually return after getting humiliated. The next point he made was that ISIS would return with fewer members each time they returned. Finally, Schappert said that “Gitmo isn’t ISIS’s biggest recruiting tool. Winning is ISIS’s biggest recruiting tool.”

There’s no doubt that ISIS is capable of killing people. They shouldn’t be taken lightly like the Obama administration has taken them. Still, they aren’t the battle-tested supermen that the media has made them out to be. I wrote this article to highlight how overrated some of these Middle Eastern warriors have been.

Just like it’s easier to stay in shape than it is to get into shape, it’s easier to keep terrorists down than it is to put down an insurgency after starting fresh.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

I haven’t kept it a secret that I don’t respect NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. I’ve written negatively about him frequently, mostly with regards to his mishandling of the Adrian Peterson case. It’s time for NFL owners to fire Goodell. If they don’t fire him, they’ll lose their credibility. It’s time for them to put their big boy pants on.

Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com is reporting about Goodell’s inaction earlier this season turning into a bigger deal now. Florio reported “During the Week Eight contest in Pittsburgh, Bengals linebacker Vontaze Burfict applied a hit to Steelers running back Le’Veon Bell that resulted in a season-ending knee injury. After the game, Steelers linebacker Vince Williams posted a tweet that Burfict and other Bengals players regarded as a death threat: ‘I catch Vontaze on south beach im painting that boi on sight.'”

According to Florio, “It’s possible the league didn’t do anything about the threats because the league didn’t want to turn a fairly small story into a big story.” Florio is wrong in calling the initial story “a fairly small story.” Physically threatening a player isn’t insignificant, especially when the offending player refuses to apologize:

Williams later deleted the tweet and issued a statement in which he refused to apologize for his words but also said he “shouldn’t have taken these feelings to Twitter.”

Taking the threat to Twitter isn’t the problem. Issuing death threats is the problem. Even if Williams wasn’t serious, it’s a serious matter. More importantly, Williams threat violates Goodell’s Personal Conduct Policy:

Williams’ behavior seems to constitute a violation of the plain terms of Personal Conduct Policy, which prohibits “[a]ctual or threatened physical violence against another person.”

Goodell hasn’t hesitated in talking about “protecting the shield” on matters of personal and professional integrity. The fact that Goodell applies this policy arbitrarily and inconsistently speaks volumes about Goodell’s penchant for situational integrity.

Technorati: , , , ,

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow has earned the reputation of being pro-immigration reform. That’s why Mr. Kudlow’s NRO op-ed is startling. Mr. Kudlow admits that we’re at war with Islamic terrorists and that “there should be no immigration or visa waivers until the U.S. adopts a completely new system to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country.” If that sounds like Trump’s plan, it’s because it’s similar but it isn’t the same.

Kudlow explains “Let me emphasize that my support for wartime immigration restrictions is not based on religion. I think Donald Trump made a big mistake here. Instead, I agree with this Rupert Murdoch tweet: ‘Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.'”

That’s the point I’ve made from the start. Let me outline the principles I’d use to prevent the next Paris or the next San Bernardino. First, I’d establish a tiered list of countries to accept refugees from. The first tier would be countries that we’d never accept refugees from. Basically, any nation whose government exists in name only would be on that list. Syria, Somalia, Mali, Libya and Yemen would be on that list.

I’ve nicknamed the second list the Procto list. Refugees from these countries would be given a full proctology examination. Each refugee would be given a full examination including everything up to the person’s tonsils. Twice. I picture nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Greece on that list. It isn’t that there are many Greek terrorists. It’s that a bunch of ISIS terrorists stopped in Greece on their way to the west from Iraq and Syria. Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan are marginal allies but they’re terrorist hotbeds, too.

I wrote this article to highlight the corruption within the Obama administration, especially in the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Tashfeen Malik, the terrorist bride, didn’t “slip through the cracks” like the administration is spinning it. They all but rolled out the red carpet for her by shutting down a program that likely would’ve put her terrorist husband, Syed Farook, on the federal government’s no-fly list because he attended a radicalized mosque.

FYI- That likely would’ve meant Malik’s visa being rejected, too.

Larry Kudlow should be applauded for changing his very public stand. The late economist John Maynard Keynes was once asked why he’d changed his policy. His epic reply fits here:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Exactly right.