Immigration Ban Is Not A Muslim Ban, Part I

Since the start of this election cycle, the liberals, or progressives, or whatever on earth they’re calling themselves now, have appeared to be in a perpetual state of anger or rage over Donald Trump. From his candidacy announcement to his first rally, from his first debate to his winning of the Republican nomination, and from his election to the presidency to his inauguration, the liberals have been outraged. Even now, the progressives are pitching a fit, and those in Congress are projecting their anger toward his nominees for the Cabinet. Trump’s, Cabinet nominations are met with vitriol, delaying tactics and personal attacks, including name calling. Trump’s nominees are called racist, sexist, xenophobes, homophobes, elitists, and inexperienced.

While congressional liberals continue to vent their anger on Trump’s cabinet picks, the majority of them have focused their rage on some of President Trump’s executive orders and memoranda. First, it was his executive order to begin repealing the ACA, (Affordable Care Act), “Obamacare;” then it was his presidential memorandum enacting a federal employee hiring freeze, and the memorandum barring international, nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortions from receiving US government funding. Next, it was the executive order allowing construction of a border wall and tougher immigration enforcement; as well as the memoranda permitting the construction of the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines. Can you imagine the effort it must take to wake-up every morning — angry. I digress.

Currently, the left is having a conniption over the executive order which suspends general and refugee immigration for a short period of time from seven, predominately Islamic, countries, that the media has labeled inappropriately and inaccurately, as the “Muslim ban.” They are staging protests, and marches. They are holding signs offering legal assistance and of protest that read, “Impeach Trump,” “No ban, No wall,” and the like all while shouting such phrases as, “Let them in,” and “No Trump, No KKK, No fascist USA.”

Unfortunately, many of those opposed to the order are either clueless, misinformed, or have an ulterior motive. For instance, EO 13769 does not ban Muslim immigration; if it was a Muslim ban why was 85% of the Muslim population not included in the ban? No, EO 13769 just suspends immigration from the seven, Muslim, nations including, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, for 90 days, and all refugee immigration, including that from Muslim countries for 120 days, pending a review of vetting procedures. Incidentally, the words Muslim or Islam are found nowhere within EO 13769. To say Trump’s executive order bans Muslims is nothing short of obfuscation. The banned countries are either combating or controlled by Islamic extremists. Amidst such chaos, how can the U.S. trust the profiles of such immigrants entering our country?

Those opposed to EO 13769 also claim it is unconstitutional; because it either exceeds executive authority or forces refugees to pass an illegal, religions test, immoral, unjustified, and un-American. First of all, it is not unconstitutional because it neither exceeds executive authority nor does it add an illegal test, despite the rulings by several judges. In 1952, Congress granted the president sole discretion over alien (non-citizen), entry into the United States. The statute reads,

“Whenever the President finds the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate…” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182)

This means, that the President may permit or deny, any individual or group, entrance into the United States, as he sees fit, with a simple proclamation such as, an executive order.

The law was written in response to a 1948, Supreme Court decision in Chicago and Southern Airlines v. Waterman. In the case, the Supreme Court determined that foreign policy, including alien threats to national security, are political, and not judicial, by nature. For the majority opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote,

“Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.” (https://casetext.com/case/c-s-air-lines-v-waterman-corp)

Translation: The President has and always has had the sole authority to regulate general and refugee immigration and neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court may interfere. As far as EO 13769 being unconstitutional for adding an illegal test of religion to refugee requirements is ridiculous. Ridiculous because a religion test is already a part of U.S. immigration law. According to federal and refugee law a refugee is,

“(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality…and who is unable or unwilling to return to…that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101)

President Trump’s executive order is not only constitutional, it’s been the law of the land for 65 years! As for EO 13769 being immoral, unjustified, and un-American, that will be explored in the second part of this blog post.

Advertisements

Obama’s Legacy: Part One

On Friday, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as our 45th president and President Barack Hussein Obama will leave office but, what will be Obama’s legacy? Dictionary.com defines legacy as, “Anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor.” Many members of the general public consider a legacy as necessarily good but, a legacy can good or bad. In this four-part blog, I will be discussing every aspect of President Obama’s legacy. I will begin with foreign policy. In July of 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama gave a foreign policy speech at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington D.C., where he pledged to, “…pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy—one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.” (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/16/uselections2008.barackobama) Unfortunately, President Obama’s actions have rarely matched his words. His “responsible” ending of the war in Iraq created ISIS; the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban continues; the rogue state of North Korea has “the bomb” and Iran is still building “the bomb;” the U.S. still relies on oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Mexico and Canada, (though that is changing despite our current energy policy) and according to “The Washington Post,” our relationships with our adversaries (China, Cuba, Iran etc.) are better than with our allies (Israel, Great Britain, Turkey etc.)!. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-cold-eyed-view-of-allies-has-left-obama-with-few-overseas-friends/2016/04/18/49d5e3ce-0195-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html?utm_term=.edca2571a0aa)
In addition, his foreign policy decisions have given the world, according to Truth In Media.com, civil wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, a rising number of domestic terrorism incidents, U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Jordan, an air-wing fighting in Libya and drone operations are being conducted in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. (http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-obama-perpetual-war-seven-countries/) President Obama also failed to halt Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and turn back Russia’s invasion of Crimea in eastern Ukraine. He also paid $5 billion and exchanged five Taliban prisoners for Bowe Bergdahl, allowed the Chinese to build bases in the South China Sea, paid $150 billion to Iran for hostages and trashed the U.S. throughout Asia during his Presidential tour. (http://www.martinoauthor.com/list-obama-failures/)
Hardly a stellar legacy. In fact, President Obama’s foreign policies should be considered an unprecedented fiasco and in the following three blogs, I will illustrate that his domestic, immigration and criminal justice policies are equally deplorable.

Excuses. Excuses.

Did I know that prior to November eighth, it was thought Hillary Clinton was our next president and to most of the media, the Democrat party and the general public, the election was merely a formality? Yes, but, if the election was “in the bag,” why did Mrs. Clinton lose? Sen. Clinton’s loss was due to racists or “angry white men,” right? (https://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2016/12/20/bill-insists-comey-angry-white-men-made-hillary-lose) Or maybe, it was FBI director Comey’s investigation into her email scandal. Yeah, that must be it. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html?_r=) No? How about her longtime assistant, Huma Abedin. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/19/clinton-advisers-point-fingers-at-huma-abedin-inner-circle-for-loss.html) You don’t know? Then it had to be fake news that cost Sec. Clinton the presidency. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBDedvplyTQ) No, again? Was it millennials who voted for third-party candidates? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/yes-you-can-blame-millennials-for-hillary-clintons-loss/?utm_term=.49b8ac024be5) I know! Mrs.Clinton lost because the Russian government hacked the election! (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/clinton-loss-russia-hacking-response-232739) What do you mean, no way? Okay, then it was traitorous, white women who betrayed their gender and voted for Donald Trump. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-white-women-glanton-20161118-column.html) Yes, that must be it or maybe it was voter suppression that caused Secretary Clinton to lose the election. (https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd#.mw4nwnppj) Make up my mind?! You’re the one– It must have been the Electoral College that cost Mrs. Clinton the presidency, right?(http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/27/nyt-its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college-n2261977)

Oh, she lost because she ran a bad campaign. You’re right. Sen. Hillary Clinton lost the presidency because she resorted to ad hominem attacks, when she was discussing her message she didn’t mention anything new, she didn’t campaign in traditionally democrat states, she didn’t campaign for all of August and she apparently mismanaged her campaign finances. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/hillary-clinton-lost-white-house-because-these-fiv/) That’s not all? Yeah, I forgot about her inability to gain the trust of the electorate, that her speeches weren’t inspiring, the FBI investigations into not just the emails but, the Clinton Foundation as well and her promise to appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court. (http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/reasons-hillary-lost-president/2016/11/10/id/758175/) Wow! It’s no wonder Sec. Clinton lost the presidency.

Whiners and Lawyers Go Away!

I am tired of the…no, I am beyond tired. I am weary of the whiners; their trigger words, safe spaces, participation trophies and micro-aggressions. I am fed up with the wimps; the hyper-sensitive, the perpetually offended, (those offended personally and who are offended for other people), the political correctness militants and those that blame their personal circumstances on supposed unfairness or inequality. Most importantly, the individuals and groups, (primarily college students and millennials), that go into hysterics when exposed to a differing view or get emotionally distraught when an event, project or idea does not happen as predicted or occur as intended, leave me exhausted.

November eighth’s election is just the latest example. Following Donald Trump’s election to the presidency, colleges across the country have been treating their students, as if, an election loss is akin to a school shooting or a death in the family. According to, “The Wall Street Journal,” students at Cornell University had a “cry-in,” while the facility handed out tissues and hot chocolate, while the students at Tufts University were provided a time off from class for them to express their feelings about the election which came to be known as a “self-care” event. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/09/colleges-try-to-comfort-students-upset-by-trump-victory/) If that was not pathetic enough, in the same article of “The Wall Street Journal,” the University of Kansas offered their students use of the therapy dogs, available every other Wednesday and the students at the University of Michigan were provided Play-Doh and coloring books to cope with the “trauma.” Even now, though the election was called more than a month ago, many Clinton supporters still show their inability to cope with a Donald Trump victory in a variety of ways. It is being reported that Trump’s victory is compelling feminists to get extreme makeovers (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/women-make-dramatic-beauty-moves-after-trumps-victory.html), is preventing some women from dating, is raising fears among women of increased misogyny or sexism and pushing Californians to secede from the United States. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/calexit-californians-exit-trump-win-article-1.2866382)

America, what has happened to our country?! Where are our rugged individualists, our “never give up” and “roll with the punches,” attitude?! Consider this. Following the election of Barack Obama, neither the supporters John McCain in 2008 nor the supporters Mitt Romney in 2012 required self-help groups, therapy animals or hot chocolate. If there were such incidents, the media did not reveal such activities. We are raising a generation of weak-minded, emotionally immature, whiners. In the sixteenth century, a character in Shakespeare’s Henry VI part II, famously remarked, “The first thing we must do is kill all the lawers.” Politicians, attorneys and others in the legal system will tell you that, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution. Whether in all seriousness or in jest, I think including whiners in the mix is a fantastic idea. No, I am not seriously advocating for the death of attorneys or whiners but, perhaps we could place them all in a large city and wall it off; we could certainly use a lot fewer of them.

California minimum wage: more harm than good

They say, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” When Jerry Brown, the Governor of California signed AB (Assembly Bill) 10 several weeks ago, he was paving California’s road to economic hell. AB 10 will raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour by the year 2022. To the uninformed or perhaps misinformed, raising the minimum wage sounds great but, even Gov. Brown thinks the measure is not economically sound. Shortly after signing the bill, the Governor said, “Economically minimum wages may not make sense. But morally socially and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids.” Despite the governor’s statement supporters of a higher minimum wage insist it will reduce poverty rates, help single parents support their children, save taxpayers money and stimulate the economy. In reality, it will not just do nothing the supporters claim but, it will have added benefit of increasing unemployment as well as, reducing the buying power of seniors, others on fixed incomes and yes, minimum wage employees. Increasing the minimum wage will not help the poor or single parents because the majority of minimum wage earners neither live in poverty nor are single parents. Recent studies indicate that, “Only 2.9 percent of US employees work for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.” In addition, “Less than a quarter of minimum wage workers live at or below the poverty line, while two-thirds come from families 150 percent above the poverty line.” (http://dailysignal.com//2013/03/04/minimum-wage-benefits-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents/) In other words, highschoolers and young adults enrolled in school.
A higher minimum wage will not save taxpayers money or stimulate the economy either, for the California legislative analysts estimates the increased minimum wage will cost taxpayers an extra $3.6 billion dollars a year. (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/minimum-710748-wage-state.html) As for stimulating the economy the Congressional Budget Office states that a $9 national minimum wage would cost 100,000 jobs. The same study also found that if the federal minimum wage were $10.10 an hour, 500,000 would lose their jobs, and 770,000 would be unemployed if it was $12 an hour. (https://www.minimumwage.com/2015/11/the-impact-of-a-12-federal-minimum-wage/) Another study by the EPI Employment Policies Institute indicates the job losses associated with a $10.10 an hour minimum wage could go as high as 1,084,000! (https://www.epionline.org/release/new-study-10-10-minimum-wage-could-eliminate-as-many-as-one-million-entry-level-jobs/) Imagine the potential job loss with a $15 an hour minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage is nothing more than political bribery; if you feel good about what your leaders are doing despite passing an ineffective or detrimental law, perhaps you will reelect them.

Three more republicans drop out

Then there were nine. Following last Monday night’s Iowa caucuses, three more republican candidates, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul, have suspended their campaigns for president. Question, why do candidates now suspend their campaigns when leaving the race instead of cancelling, discontinuing or ending them? After all, suspend means, “temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect” but, none of the suspended campaigns have restarted again. I digress.
In my opinion, the candidates are “suspending” their campaigns because the three of them received less than ten percent of the vote, combined. Why have the aforementioned presidential candidates done so poorly? The primary reason is that most of the conservative and republican electorate, right or wrong, consider Huckabee, Paul and Santorum as insiders or part of the establishment. Conservatives and other republicans are tired of the establishment because despite promises to the contrary, congressional republicans have done little or nothing to rollback President Obama’s policies and those of his administration. They have failed to repeal or defund Obamacare, balance the budget, reduce federal spending or challenge Obama’s executive orders. They have neither curtailed the flow of illegal immigrants, reformed the TSA to make it more effective nor, reduced or eliminated the number of federal regulations. Secondarily, Huckabee and Santorum were seen as uninspiring while Paul’s ideas were thought to be currently irrelevant. The republican electorate wants a conservative, energizing outsider who will do what they promise and frankly, with the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, the lower tier candidates (those polling in single digits), are almost the complete opposite. The establishments of both parties had better realize what the people want or they may begin to see torches, pitchforks and a second American revolution.

Radical Islamic Terrorists Do It Again.

I am outraged! Why? Take a guess. Yes, I am outraged that radical Islamic terrorists murdered 132 and injured 349 people three weeks ago, and then killed fourteen and injured 21 more, on last week. I am outraged so many Muslim individuals and groups feel justified in murdering innocent men, women, and children because of a difference of beliefs. I am outraged that a majority of educators from western democracies discuss how their respective governments are corrupt, immoral, unethical, illegal and illigitimate. I am outraged that a number of students, taught by the aforementioned instructors, now feel justified in joining ISIS.
However, what is the most outrageous is how world leaders seem unable or unwilling to do what is proper or neccesary to stop terrorism. They have attempted a number of strategies to stop terrorist attacks including accommodation, negotiation, a laissez-faire approach and containment but, all strategies have proven equally ineffective. Instead of assimilation, (encouraging immigrants to join their new culture), many western democracies chose accomodation which turned a misguided policy, granting European and Canadian neighborhoods to muslims to govern themselves under Sharia law, into “no-go zones.” No-go zones are terribly impoverished areas with horrible crime rates where local police, fire fighters and other government officials refuse to go to for fear of their lives. (http://smallgovreport.com/2015/01/09/europe-has-handed-over-hundreds-of-neighborhoods-to-sharia-law-and-its-not-going-too-well/) In the past negotiation has lead to treaties which were enforced and the consequences for violating them were harsh. Now world leaders use agreements which are rarely enforced. The consequences for violating the agreements are nothing or negligible. Terrorist nations such as Iran, (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/iran-s-cheating_914654.html#!t), and terrorist organizations like Hamas, (http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/hamas.html), have defied negotiatorson every previous agreement. Other terrorist groups such as Lord’s Resistance Army refused to sign an agreement previously mediated. (http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/lra.html) Negotiation might be more successful if world leaders would provide more forceful consequences for violating agreements. Unfortunately the Koran permits its followers to lie to nonbelievers so negotiation may never be effective. (http://muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in-the-name-of-islam/islam-permits-lying-to-deceive-unbelievers-and-bri.shtml)
The same is true with the laissez-faire policies of the 1990’s and much of President Obama’s second term. During the 90’s, the U.S. and its allies allowed the Taliban to sieze control of Afghanistan, turn it into a terrorist training ground, and Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to gain power which lead to the attacks of 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. In 2012, just months before the election, Barack Obama was warned how the unrest in Syria and a withdrawal of American troops would allow Al-Qaeda in Iraq to make a comeback and declare a Califate. (http://www.aei.org/publication/defense-intelligence-agency-warned-obama-about-isis-in-2012/)
Finally, containment has also been ineffective. Despite the bombing campaign, ISIS and other terrorist organizations such as Al Shabaab and the Houthi in Yemen are still gaining strength and aquiring more territory. In addition, the recent terrorist in Belgium, France, and the United States have shown that current strategies are insufficient. Finally recent intelligence reports indicate ISIS is not contained and could spread across the globe. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3349452/ISIS-not-contained-spread-globe-warns-White-House-intelligence-report.html)
The terrorists cannot be accommodated, negotiated with, just left alone or contained, they must be defeated or destroyed and until everyone understands that we will never be safe.

Confederate Flag Hypocrisy

I’m tired of all the hypocrisy associated with government agencies, politics and the media. I’m tired of law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, classifying one mass murder at a church as an act of terrorism and another mass murder in the name of Allah at a military base as work place violence. I’m especially tired of the politicians and journalists condemning one group’s actions and praising or ignoring another group for doing the same action. The latest example are the calls to remove the Confederate flag, and the outrage over ISIS destroying “precious” artifacts. Those calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from all state grounds, if not the entire country believe said flag is racist, offensive and causes people to commit crimes. They’re example is suspected, white supremacist, Dylann Roof who is accused of murdering nine people in a Charleston, North Carolina church. I don’t know about you, but no flag or any other object has made me do anything. We seem to want to blame something other than the person who pulled the trigger. The Confederate flag didn’t get him the gun nor did it coerce him to shoot those nine innocents, but I digress.
What is so hypocritical is the fact that many of the same politicians and members of the press are upset about ISIS destroying ancient artifacts from civilizations that also had slaves. They don’t seem to be too concerned about the number of innocent people killed by ISIS or how they were murdered by the terrorist group rather they’re more concerned that pieces of the past are gone forever. Do the flags of the United Kingdom, France, China, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have to come down also? Each of the countries just listed had slaves and some still do! Shouldn’t the people of the civilized world be more concerned about the nations that still permit slavery and use every means to end slavery? Why should individuals be so troubled over an object that no longer represents what it used to represent. The Confederate States were defeated more than 170 years ago and segregation ended almost 60 years ago. In addition, where is it written that we are to protected from being offended? It is time to concentrate on more important issues such as the economy, health care and international terrorism!

Obama bans transfer of military equipment.

Last week, President Obama announced an executive order banning the transfer and use of certain military equipment for police departments. The ban was enacted because, “…the substantial risk of misusing or overusing these items, which are seen as military in nature, could significantly undermine community trust and may encourage tactics and behaviors inconsistent with the premise of civilian law enforcement.” If I were a member of law enforcement I would find this especially insulting. Mr. Obama makes the assumption that police officers and sheriff’s deputies are either too incompetent or too barbaric to handle military hardware responsibly or differently. The ban includes armed aircraft, tracked armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, .50 caliber or higher ammunition, and camouflage clothing.
This latest executive order is disingenuous since many of the banned items aren’t even used by law enforcement. Law enforcement doesn’t, and has never utilized armed aircraft, tracked armored vehicles, .50 caliber rifles or bayonets at any time. Armed aircraft are, if I’m not mistaken, illegal for law enforcement, tracked armored vehicles are too expensive to maintain, .50 caliber rifles are unnecessary
for shots of 400 yards or less which is covers the vast majority of hostage situations, and bayonets can’t be used defensively. The only piece of military equipment police officers and sheriff’s deputies use are grenade launchers but, those are used differently by law enforcement. The army and navy utilize grenade launchers to kill people with fragmentation or concussive explosives; the police use grenade launchers to fire teargas and other non-lethal ammunition such as beanbag rounds. Despite what politicians and those in the media may say police officers and sheriff’s deputies don’t go on “search and destroy” missions.
The president went on to say, “…we’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force as opposed to a force that’s part of the community, that’s protecting them and serving them. It can alienate and intimidate local residents, and send the wrong message.” This statement is dishonest and infuriating. His statement is dishonest for he gives the impression that armored vehicles and police officers dressed in riot gear are routinely patrolling poor neighborhoods. In reality, armored vehicles and body armor only appear during hostage situations, serving dangerous arrest warrants, and of course during civil unrest. I have friends and acquaintances who are serving in the military and in law enforcement so, I know this to be true. Apparently, President Obama believes police departments use military hardware the same way as military personnel, they don’t.
The aforementioned executive order will also place stricter controls on other equipment provided by the federal government such as wheeled armored vehicles, manned aircraft and drones, specialized firearms, explosives, battering rams, riot batons, helmets and shields. Beginning in October, police will have to get approval from their city council, mayor or some other local governing body to obtain such equipment, provide a persuasive argument why it is needed, and have more training and data collection on the use of the hardware. Another disingenuous action. Law enforcement agencies have required civilian approval since this country was founded. Do you know of any police agencies that have never been able to purchase equipment or hire employees without civilian approval? You know why not, because it’s up to city councils and other similar bodies to approve all funding! This action is also disingenuous because it won’t prevent large sheriff’s and police departments from obtaining such equipment; just the smaller departments. Large departments have been purchasing such equipment long before 9/11 and this transfer program. Does anyone sincerely believe this executive will do anything to reduce the animosity between the police and the public? This executive order is nothing but slight of hand! President Obama must think we the people will believe everything he says or does. Police agencies don’t use the banned military equipment and don’t arrest or kill people indiscriminately. In addition the majority of law enforcement aren’t incompetent either. I for one am glad the police are there to protect and serve.

Decisions, decisions

As you’ve probably noticed I haven’t posted a blog in quite a while. With the number of newsworthy events occurring in the U.S. and around the world, it’s been nigh unto impossible to decide what to write about. Examples of newsworthy events include ISIS gaining strength, influence and followers, and killing dozens of people on a daily basis; record snowfalls canceling thousands of airline flights and closing hundreds of government offices and businesses; three federal agencies issuing regulations without legal authority; outbreaks of the Enterovirus and the Measles taking the lives of several people; thousands of dockworkers striking at every major port on the west coast; and discovering that former Secretary of Slate Hillary Clinton conducted government and private business on a personal server she wasn’t supposed to use. Then there are increasing incidents of antisemitism; rising incidents of government corruption, deceit, and incompetence; and other Islamic militant groups (Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda) declaring their allegiance to ISIS. It’s a wonder I haven’t been driven to madness. Fortunately, that hasn’t happened to me, not yet anyway but, it’s the reason I haven’t written in so long.
I’ve come to the realization that sometimes the world can be overwhelming (especially now) but, because I’ve chosen to write a blog like this, I must put those feelings aside and do my job. I created this blog to reveal to the public the truth behind many of the world’s headlines and inject some common sense into them but, l haven’t done that as often as I’ve planned. It’s much more labor intensive than I had imagined . I will redouble my efforts and try to post a blog at least once a week. Thank you for your patience and God bless the United States of America!