Florida Third-Grade Students praise Obama on Constitution Day

Ealexander

Elizabeth Alexander (center) with principal Ms. Harvey and vice principal Ms. Eberst. Picture courtesy of Port Salerno Elementary School website.

September 17th was Constitution Day. United States Public Law requires that public educational institutions receiving federal funds teach about the Constitution on September 17 each year. Florida Law requires public school districts to commemorate the founding principles of our nation during the last full week of September.

In public schools across America students were reading and discussing the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important and influential documents ever penned.

However, in one Martin County Florida elementary school it was not the Constitution and Bill of Rights which were handed out, rather it was a book titled “Praise Song for the Day: A Poem for Barack Obama’s Presidential Inauguration, January 20, 2009” by  Elizabeth Alexander.

One grandparent seeing the book her grandchild brought home wrote:

Here is a photo of the front cover of the booklet [below] given to all 3rd graders at Port Salerno Elementary School [Stuart, FL] yesterday, Constitution Day.  My grand daughter brought this home.

I just took a closer look at the book and noticed the list of foundations [below] who enabled the publishing of this book and I guess also the distribution of it.

I must also note that this was not done with the knowledge of the school board.

But just look at this list of far left leaning foundations!

We have seen this kind of praise of one individual before in German schools. As – Adolf Hitler wrote:

“I begin with the young. We older ones are used up but my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at all these men and boys! What material! With you and I, we can make a new world.” 

We are now seeing our young molded to “make a new world” in Florida Schools.

RELATED ARTICLE: Satanic Information to be Given to Children in Florida Schools

image001

Book cover. For a larger view click on the image.

image002

Supporting foundations including the Bush Foundation. or a larger view click on the image.

image003 (1)

About the author Elizabeth Alexander. or a larger view click on the image.

 

Florida’s Marijuana Amendment 2: Every Parent’s Nightmare

This November a critical battle will be fought to challenge the heavily financed push for ‘medical marijuana’ in Florida, which is ripe with disinformation and loaded with power brokers ready to cash in, all at the expense of our youth.

Politics Behind the Bill

First, let’s examine the politics behind this ballot initiative. Mid-term elections are historically lackluster; however, more young voters are likely to turn out with this initiative being on the ballot. Ana Cruz, former executive director for the Florida Democrat Party has stated, “I wish it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters.” John Morgan, a major fundraiser for Obama and boss of Charlie Crist, who is running for governor, has been very visible stirring up young adults to show up to vote, using marijuana as the ‘lure.’

Big Business involvement

Funding for the legalization of marijuana and the ‘medical’ angle has come from a number of millionaire financiers, such as Peter B. Lewis and billionaire George Soros in an $80M drive across the country, funding such groups as Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, United for Care and People United for Medical Marijuana. Make no mistake, this is not a “grassroots” project, but a “big business” opportunity and certainly doesn’t have arthritis ridden geriatric seniors or children with epilepsy in mind. Soros has gone on the record clearly stating that he supports the legalization of drugs, even crack cocaine. Billionaire Warren Buffet has also jumped on the bandwagon and has developed a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Cubic Designs, Inc., which promises many weed dispensaries, “Double your space: Grow your profits;” promoting mezzanine systems to expand their growing spaces for marijuana.

The entertainment industry has also taken hold with a new web based “Marijuana Reality Show,” preparing to launch in Denver that is designed to pitch products and services for the pot industry making them “millionaires.” As The New York Times has pointed out, the legal industry is expected to grow $2.6B this year. Let’s not be naïve, the “medical marijuana” push is not designed to help our chronically sick, pain stricken Americans, it’s glamorizing this controlled substance for our youth and big business is ready to profit from it.

Florida Lawmakers Approve Medical Marijuana, Charlotte’s Web

In addressing the issue of marijuana’s use to treat sick people, Florida’s Governor Scott recently signed into law a bill legalizing medical marijuana oil to treat epilepsy, cancer and Lou Gehrig’s disease. The “Charlotte’s Web” bill legalizes strains of marijuana that are high in CBD, which eases seizures in the brain, but low in THC, the compound that produces a high. Therefore, why is the ‘Medical Marijuana,’ Amendment 2 on the ballot?

Doctors, Law Enforcement and Other Professionals Sound Alarm

According to Dr. Lawrence Wilson, marijuana is now just as addictive as cocaine and heroin, for some people, especially teenagers. He discusses that the drug cartels, which have plenty of money, are breeding new marijuana hybrid plants with higher levels of THC, with other toxic chemicals in it. It is much stronger and more addicting. Furthermore, he claims that in states where the medical marijuana initiative was passed, such as California, Colorado and Montana, he found:

  • Marijuana went to drug abusers, teenagers, college students and not the seriously ill
  • In Montana, travelling marijuana caravans take “pot doctors” from town to town handing out medical marijuana cards
  • Traffic accidents increased; difficult to prosecute
  • Crime increased, because of violent behavior and the inability of many pot smokers to hold employment
  • Pot smokers gained unheard of impunity with employers and the law, because of the wording in the bill

Researchers at Northwestern U. have analyzed the relationship between casual use of marijuana and brain changes, finding that young adults who used cannabis just once or twice a week showed significant brain abnormalities in two important brain structures. Dr. Hans Breiter has found that heavy cannabis use caused similar brain abnormalities to those patients suffering from schizophrenia. The findings at Northwestern U. have determined that continued marijuana use leads to a condition called “amotivation syndrome,” a psychological condition that causes people to be less goal oriented and less focused in general. Other studies indicate that adolescents who started using marijuana before the age of 18, with continued use, experienced as much as an 8 point decline in IQ scores.

Furthermore, young women who engage in pot smoking when pregnant can increase their child’s risk of having permanent cognitive deficits, psychiatric disorders, anxiety and depression in addition to premature birth.

Societal Impact

In Colorado, over 37 people died across the state the first day the drug became legal, many more were not expected to survive. Dr. Jack Shepard, chief of surgery at St. Luke’s Hospital stated that, “It’s complete chaos here. I’ve put five college students in body bags since breakfast.” He further stated, “We are seeing cardiac arrests, multiple organ failures; by next week the death toll could go as high as 200.” A young lady in Colorado was quoted as saying that all her friends had marijuana cards, so it was always available.

Amendment 2 would allow marijuana to be sold in dispensaries, not in medically controlled facilities and with relaxed zoning laws, which means that they could crop up anywhere.

The general public should be concerned about these pot shops being a magnet for gangs and crime in their communities and the strain on their law enforcement’s operating budgets fighting the resulting criminal activity. Even the DEA admits that marijuana legalization “scares us.” James L. Capra, chief of operations has stated, “There are more dispensaries in Colorado than there are Starbucks.” He went on to say, “This is a bad experiment. It’s going to cost us in terms of social costs.”

To Learn More About This Issue Please Visit: www.Don’tLetFLGoToPot.com

References:

http://rt.com/usa/dea-against-marijuana-legalization-734/
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/01/02/marijuana-overdoses-kill-37-in-colorado-on-first-day-of-legalization/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/gov-scott-signs-charlottes-web-marijuana-bill-into-law/2184590
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/09/14/4348193/marc-caputo-the-politics-paradoxes.html
http://www.forthepeople.com/featured-news/john-morgan-and-medical-marijuana
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/03/Soros-Funding-Pot-Legalization
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/medical-marijuana-oil-bills-approved-north-carolina-florida
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-usa-florida-marijuana-idUSBREA410W220140502
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/medical-marijuana-florida_n_5145686.html
http://rt.com/usa/dea-against-marijuana-legalization-734/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/after-5-months-of-sales-colorado-sees-the-downside-of-a-legal-high.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/marijuana-while-pregnant-affects-babies-brain_n_4674820.html

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35647/The-Invisible-Hand-Cultivates-Cannabis/

http://.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/15/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities
http://drlwilson.com/Articles/CANNABIS.htm

Where is Our ‘Voice in the Wilderness’ touting Conservatism?

For crying out loud, will someone “pleeeeease” take a stand for Conservatism? Someone forwarded this article to me, “Why Are Republicans Suddenly Leaning Left?

The article cites numerous examples of the GOP obviously believing it must embrace at least lukewarm Liberalism while backing away from Conservatism to win elections.

The article mentioned that Mitt Romney avoided saying “Republican” in an ad supporting Scott Brown’s Senate run. Romney said in the ad referring to Brown, “will buck his own party to do what’s right for New Hampshire.” Romney’s statement implies that Conservatism can be mean, but rest assured that Brown will push back if Republicans go down that road. This hogwash drives me nuts because Conservatism is not mean, Liberalism is mean!

Mr Romney you are an honorable man. But, if you are not going to boldly articulate the superior attributes of Conservatism; how it is rooted in compassion and why it is most beneficial to all Americans — if you are afraid to explain the foundational evils of Liberalism, please stay home; out of the 2016 presidential race.

In the first 2012 presidential debate, Romney kicked Obama’s butt with truth and facts. Then, Romney went on “prevent defense” in the next debate. His behavior said, “I have Obama on the ropes. I’m not going to say or do anything to blow my lead.” Consequently, in the second debate Romney allowed Obama to get away with lies.

Clueless low info voters believed Obama’s lies and his sycophant MSM allies said nothing. Romney’s lukewarm defense of Republican principles (Conservatism) led to 4 million frustrated Republican voters staying home, not bothering to cast their votes on election day.

Thus far, Romney is telegraphing that he will use the same failed “don’t-come-across-too-conservative” strategy again. Stay home Mr Romney. Please stay home.

Even the Bible expresses displeasure with those who are afraid to stand up for what they believe. “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

Like President Ronald Reagan, I am a bold colors kind of guy.

Enough with the weak kneed apologizing and watering down what it means to be conservative; allowing certain Americans to break laws due to race, embracing immoral and culturally destructive behaviors in the name of inclusion.

I liked G. W. Bush, but I rue the day that he came out with his “Compassionate Conservatism”. He reinforced Dems/liberal’s lie that Conservatism is not by nature, compassionate. The truth is Conservatism is the epitome of compassion. When will someone have the backbone to stand up for Conservatism; tell Americans why it is far better for them than Liberalism? I am a black conservative because it would be idiotic and self-destructive to embrace Liberalism.

Conservatism 101: A Tale of Two Dads – Little Johnny Says He Does Not Want to Go to School.

Liberal dad’s reply: “Son, I feel your pain. School has too many challenges. Stay in bed. I will provide for and protect you.”

Conservative dad’s reply: “Johnny, you get your butt out of that bed this instant and get ready for school. I will speak to the principal, attend PTA and do whatever necessary. You need an education to have a happy and fulfilled life. I love you son.”

Which dad is righteous, loving and truly compassionate?

Folks, my little scenario illustrates the foundational beliefs under girding Conservatism and Liberalism in America. Conservatism is good for people, offering help to launch folks into self-reliance and personal achievement which creates self-respect and self-esteem.

Liberalism is notorious for dissing people, implying that they are stupid and weak in need of cradle to grave government dependency and intellectual liberals managing their lives.

This is why it is so frustrating to watch the MSM get away with branding the Tea Party “extreme” with very little push back and even support from the GOP. At the core of the Tea Party is Conservatism. Unlike liberals, we respect the individual. We are patriots who desire our government to abide by the Constitution. We desire smaller government, laws enforced equally, fiscal responsibility and a president who does not behave like our Imperial Dictator. And yet, we in the Tea Party are the ones called crazy extremists and a threat to our nation. Why won’t someone tell America the truth, who we really are?

Continuing to allow liberal’s lies about conservatives to go unchallenged is unacceptable. Liberal’s modus operandi is to accuse conservatives of the very crimes they commit.

For example: Liberals say conservatives are intolerant. Liberals are the epitome of intolerance. And for all their campaigning against bullying, liberals are notorious bullies. Talk about blood in the water; how many times have we witnessed the liberal MSM having a feeding frenzy ripping apart someone who dared to express a point of view other than their consensus on an issue?

Bloody victims barely hold on to life after suffering public humiliation and the loss of property and income. And yet, these vicious liberal bullies get all the credit; praised as paragons of compassion. The truth is compassion is the heart of Conservatism.

With Obama’s declining approval numbers, GOP candidates have a golden opportunity to explain the superior attributes and benefits of Conservatism.

Who will be our John the Baptist? Who will be our voice crying in the wilderness proclaiming the good news of Conservatism?

Obama sending 300 soldiers to fight the Islamic State & 3,000 to get infected with Ebola

Daily it seems the foreign policy priorities of President Obama are misguided at the least and wrong headed at worst. It appears that President Obama is more concerned with fighting Ebola in Liberia than fighting the Islamic State in Iraq.

How do we know? By the number of our soldiers he is putting at risk to address each crisis.

Fighting Ebola is not a role for the U.S. Military. That is a role for the international health community and other non-governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO website states, “It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.”

The role of the U.S. Military is to close with and destroy the enemy using all means available. Fighting a pandemic in Liberia is not part of our military’s mission nor is it an existential threat to the U.S. The best way to fight Ebola is quarantine. Do not allow those infected to come to the United States.

The Weekly Standards William Kristol asks, “Aren’t there other parts of the U.S government suited to carry on this fight? If not, shouldn’t there be? Max Boot suggested building such a non-military civilian ability in the pages of this magazine over a decade ago. Surely an administration committed to smart power would have developed the civilian capabilities to fight a virus without deploying 3,000 troops?”

What President Obama is doing is exposing our soldiers to the deadly Ebola virus. These soldiers will all be returning to the United States and some of them may become infected. There is a potential for all 3,000 to be infected, as they are neither trained nor equipped to deal with this Ebola crisis.

President Obama is sending 300 soldiers, boots on the ground, to take on the existential threat of the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This is too small of a force to make any substantial difference even with air superiority. The U.S. military experience fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan does not equate to the threat of the Islamic State. The two theaters of operation differ in terms of terrain, enemy strength, how IS is armed and funded.

President Obama is putting these 300 in the same situation as King Leonidas did when he led 300 Spartans to hold back the Persian Army of Xerxes. A potential massacre of our soldiers.

Neither decision makes any sense militarily. Neither decision makes sense from a foreign policy perspective. The only way these two decisions make sense is from a political perspective.

President Obama wants to be both the humanitarian and war fighter. Sadly the price for his faulty decisions will be paid by our soldiers who are being put into untenable situations.

It appears President Obama is focused on November 6, 2014 and not the long term national security of the United States.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

U.S. troops head to Africa for Ebola mission – Army Times

Doctors: Sending U.S. troops to fight Ebola irresponsible, appalling, ‘misuse of military’

Islamic State: Find U.S. soldiers’ homes, “show up and slaughter them”

Could Independent Scotland Become a Haven for the Free Market?

Thoughts on prospects for breaking from Britain by Robert Ramsey.

By leaving the United Kingdom, Scotland has a chance to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. These last few weeks have shown the Yes vote sitting at around 50 percent—an astonishing number considering that Scottish independence has for years merely been a pipe dream.

The future appears to be bright, but only if things don’t go as promised.

Those campaigning for the Yes vote have promised a currency union with England and a continuing supply of oil. Their economy would be tied to the oil and the security of the pound. If things go wrong, they say, the Brits will bail them out.

The English are in no way on board with a currency union, though, with several finance ministers, including Danny Alexander, the chief secretary of the treasury, insisting that there will be no union. The English have few incentives to enter a currency union, so the likelihood of one coming into existence is low.

If the currency union doesn’t work out, the Scottish National Party has stated that admittance to the EU, with access to the euro, is very likely. This appears to be a dubious claim as well, with several high-ranking European Union officials announcing in the last few weeks that Scotland will probably not be admitted, particularly without its own central bank.

This would leave Scotland with one option: to form an independent currency based solely on its own economy.

While this is the last thing the Scottish want—as it means they would be much more open to financial crisis—in the end it could be a very good thing.

The most prosperous nations in the world all have two things in common: They have small populations and smaller governments. Scotland has both of these things.

If Scotland has to depend on its own national currency, there will be two likely results:

One is they’ll have to lower regulations on the industries currently present in Scotland in order to make them stay. There is nothing more frustrating to a multinational corporation than to have to change up an already-working system, and so Scotland will have to sweeten the pot. This means incentives not only for companies to remain, but for new ones to set up shop.

Secondly, Scotland will be free from the giant Westminster bureaucracy. This would leave Scotland with a smaller government able to more nimbly adapt and adjust to changes. It would also mean that the government would be more accountable to the small population, which has always boded well as far as reducing waste goes.

The Scottish National Party, the primary driving force behind the Yes campaign, has also claimed that the oil fields in the North Sea will provide enough cash flow to build an economy mirroring that of Norway, a socialist utopia. This has become the crux of the campaign, and large numbers of critics have stood up to say that Scotland might very well soon run out of oil.

Like having an independent currency, running out of oil might play in Scotland’s favor. Currently, the oil is presented as being the crutch holding up the national economy. If this crutch were to disappear, then the economy might collapse altogether, according to critics. The answer to this is simple: If the Scottish economy is merely being propped up by oil taxes, etc. then maybe the taxes are the problem, not the oil disappearing.

Faced with shrinking oil production and an independent currency, Scotland may very well have to reduce taxes, regulations, and government spending on a drastic scale in order to ensure economic growth. In other words, Scotland might become a haven for the free-market, and with that will come wealth and prosperity for every Scotsman.

Imam Educates the President on Islam: The Koran Promotes Terrorism and the Killing of “Innocents”

In the beginning of his speech last week on the threat of ISIS (or ISIL), President Obama told Americans:

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents…”

He is wrong on both counts.  And he knows it.  He is doing a disservice to the American public and our “war” effort.  If our Commander-in-Chief refuses to honestly identify the enemy, we are not going to win this war in the long run.  That’s because even if we destroy ISIS there will be other Islamic organizations to take its place.

The reason: Islam is a religion of violence.

I can only conjecture that the President’s comments were meant to pander to American Muslims and anesthetize the American people to the true internal threat posed by Muslims within our gates.

But British Imam Anjem Choudary set the President and the American public straight in this short video clip.

In the clip from a recent interview on RT’s (formerly Russia Today) Worlds Apart, Choudary, told the world the truth about Islam that so called “moderate” Muslims in America have been trying to hide.

When asked if the beheading of American journalist James Foley was justified under Sharia law, Choudary said:

“Every action for a Muslim must be based on the Koran, the word of Allah and the teachings of the messenger Mohammad … But those who are already Muslim must know that Allah mentions in the Koran, in fact if you look at Chapter 8 Verse 60, he said prepare as much as you can the steeds of war to terrorize the enemy. So, terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam. I mean, this is something that we must embrace and understand as far as the jurisprudence of jihad is concerned.”

Regarding “innocents” there are none.

The Imam explains:

“The thing that people need to appreciate is that in war the Muslims are not distinguishing in general between civilians and military because those very civilians are those who put the people in charge and those people in charge like Obama and others are sending the troops to Muslim countries so they don’t making (sic) that distinction; let alone between people who are journalists, who are considered to the right hand in fact and the propaganda machine of the Obama Administration.”

The Koran commands Muslims to engage in a holy war (Jihad) in order to impose Islam and Shariah Law on the entire world.

 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Koran 9:5)

Interestingly, the President’s counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan (now Director of the CIA), during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argued that the terms “jihadist” or “jihad” should not be used to describe America’s enemies.  His reason: jihad is a holy struggle and a legitimate tenet of Islam.  It sure is. And jihadists are America’s enemy.

See the video below.

Democrat Double Standard: Who is more offensive Rush Limbaugh or John B. Morgan?

The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is all upset by a comment made by Rush Limbaugh. But what about a rant by John B. Morgan, Democrat fundraiser and Charlie Crist supporter?

Steve Israel, Chairman of the DCCC, in an email states, “There’s simply no excusing Rush Limbaugh’s comments. I know you’re not surprised that Rush said something offensive, but Rush’s comments yesterday were truly heinous:

“[According to Ohio State policy,] consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn anytime, and the absence of “no” does not mean “yes.” How many guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that no means yes if you know how to spot it?… Are these [policies] not lawsuits waiting to happen? ” — Rush Limbaugh, yesterday

Comments of this offensive nature are inexcusable — especially at a time when our country is having a long-overdue conversation about violence against women. Plain and simple — Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of sexual assault. He should be taken off the air immediately.

morgan and obama

John Morgan, Democrat fundraiser, with Barack Obama.

What about a sexist rant by John B. Morgan, Florida attorney and boss of Charlie Crist?

Dr. Beverly Newman in her column “Who is Really Waging a War Against Women?” states, “In his infamous drunken speech at a Lakeland bar on August 28, 2014, Morgan not only advanced the legalization of marijuana, but also promised his young cheering audience, ‘I do have some money [many millions] …. And let me tell you what. Every one of you mother f—kers can get a sex on the beach. I’m gonna buy it for you ….’”

“Why is John Morgan still licensed to practice law in Florida? Why is he, as a lawyer, permitted to prominently and publicly promote human trafficking via prostitution? Is this not America’s real war against women, who are the primary victims of the sex trade, in which they are invariably drugged?”, writes Newman.

Which is more “heinous.” Rush’s statement or Morgan’s rant.

Where are the Democrats when you need them to stand up and take a stand, no matter who it is who makes statements “advocating for the tolerance of sexual assault.” Will Democrats demand that John Morgan’s law license be revoked for paying women for sex on the beach?

Don’t hold your breath.

Watch and listen to Morgan’s sexist rant against women:

Who is Really Waging a War Against Women?

First of all, I am a woman, happily so. Secondly, Florida’s Governor Rick Scott is not at war with me. Sometimes, I strongly differ with persons in his enormous government, but the Governor is not persecuting me as a woman, as being advertised in the media. In fact, there is only one real war against women in America, who are trafficked for sex and servitude.

Outside of the United States, there exists a ferocious, insatiable, grotesque war against the female gender under Sharia law, which literally hides, beats, mutilates, and murders women on a regular basis for a host of causes – like driving cars, publicly meeting with a male, advocating for educational opportunities, or refusing to obey thousands of male-initiated commands from a father, spouse, brother, or some other man. This, my fellow ladies, is a war against women.

To some degree, Rick Scott is aligned with me in real-time wars against many of my most important foes – marijuana legalization, human trafficking, and pill mills.

This is not an endorsement of a candidate. This is an avid endorsement of every candidate, official, and individual who is working aggressively against the menaces that matter most to this grandmother of four, teacher of 36 years, and maternal figure for thousands of students she has taught. As a woman, suffering children cause me to suffer, and I have personally seen children suffer from marijuana use, prescription over-medications, and trafficking by predators.

In the classroom, marijuana use, endorsed and promoted by Florida’s most boastful attorney, John Morgan, is a systemic destructive element in a child’s life, inducing lethargy, loss of inhibitions, malaise, lack of alertness, truancy, uncontrolled babble, and a host of symptoms counterproductive to high achievement and very productive for the coffers of lawyers.

In his infamous drunken speech at a Lakeland bar on August 28, 2014, Morgan not only advanced the legalization of marijuana, but also promised his young cheering audience, “I do have some money [many millions] …. And let me tell you what. Every one of you mother f—ers can get a sex on the beach. I’m gonna buy it for you ….”

Why is John Morgan still licensed to practice law in Florida? Why is he, as a lawyer, permitted to prominently and publicly promote human trafficking via prostitution? Is this not America’s real war against women, who are the primary victims of the sex trade, in which they are invariably drugged?

I challenge John Morgan to a real debate on marijuana legalization in front of an audience that is not intoxicated, using words that are not profane and disgusting.

I challenge the State of Florida to disbar this champion of prostitution and of illegal drugs, bragging, “Once I get out of Polk County, I might smoke a lot of grass.”

Our Pathetic President

The first thing you need to keep in mind is that Syria and Iraq are now just lines on a map at this point. They don’t exist as national states because the former is locked in a civil war that will replace its dictator one way or the other and the latter’s alleged government is deeply divided between the usual schism of Sunni and Shiite.

More to the point, Iraq’s government is led by men who are the friends and pawns of Iran. In a recent issue of the Iranian newspaper, Eternad, an Iranian analyst commented on the new Iraqi cabinet noting that its new prime minister “enjoys Iran’s support and spend his formative years in Iran, and continued (the operation of the Islamic al-Dawa party) until the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

That fall was the result of the war waged against Saddam by President George W. Bush. The Iranian analyst noted that Iraq’s new foreign minister, Dr. Ebrahim Jafari “until recently lived in Tehran in Iran, and enjoyed Iran’s support in spite of his differences with Nouri al-Maleki (the former prime minister). The new Iraqi oil minister, transport minister, and minister of sport and youth were all described as “close to Iran, who either lived in Iran before, fought against the Ba’ath regime with Iran’s help, or constantly traveled to Iran.”

Iraq and Syria came into being when French and British diplomats created them as colonies following the end of World War I, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Treaty of Versailles.

In his September 10th speech, President Obama uttered the word “war” only once and then only to say “We will not be dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”

The speech, like everything he says, was a lie constructed to undue the truth he inadvertently admitted when he revealed “We have no strategy.”  If you do not intend to go to war, you do not need a strategy. Instead, you can pretend to the American public that the war will be fought by Iraqis and Syrians.

So far the Syrian civil war has cost that “nation” 200,000 lives and driven a million Syrians out of the country. As for the Iraqis, their military fled in the face of the ISIS forces, leaving behind the weapons we gave them. Between Iraq and Syria, ISIS now controls a landmass larger than the size of Great Britain.

In the course of the speech, Obama said he had dispatched 475 more troops to Iraq. We have an estimated 1,500 or more troops on the ground. That is barely the size of an infantry regiment, composed of two battalions of between 300 and 1,300 troops each.

Significantly, though, Obama opened the speech by reminding Americans that he had “brought home 140,000 American troops from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year.”

President Obama has announced he intends to send up to 3,000 troops to West Africa to help combat Ebola. He can find troops to put in harm’s way in Africa, but not to combat ISIS.

All he has ever wanted to do is to flee from our declared enemies whether they are al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS or other Islamic holy warriors. Those numbers signal his failure to follow up our sacrifices in those two nations.

Years after World War II and the Korean War, we still have combat troops in Europe, South Korea, and on bases around the world, but he is pulling out troops in the two nations where our interests are currently threatened. He called the enemy “small groups of killers.” He claimed that “America is safer.”

He appears to think the greatest threat of our time, the holy war being waged by fanatical Muslims, can be won with air strikes and measures that do “not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

Fighting on foreign soil is what American combat troops did throughout the last century and into this one. They helped defeat Germany and the Japanese Empire in World War II. They stopped the communist North Korean attack on the South, but had less success in the long Vietnam War. They were successful in the Gulf wars until Obama was elected.

We have a President who has displayed a lack of leadership, a lack of judgment, ignorance of history, a cowardly approach to the threats we face, and who has demonstrated over and over again that he is a liar. His administration is likely to be judged the most corrupt in the history of the nation, indifferent to the Constitution and our laws.

Proclaiming that he “could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform”, this is a President who has engaged in dramatically reducing the size of our military to pre-World War II levels. After a two-star general, Major General Harold J. Green, was killed in Afghanistan in April not one single member of the White House attended his funeral. Obama was playing golf.

America must survive a man who many have come to believe is “the worst President” in our history. An essential stop toward that will be to defeat as many Democratic Party incumbents and candidates for office in the November 4 midterm elections. Americans—patriots—can do no less at this point.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

NFL Threw Ray Rice Under the Bus

By now most people have heard how Ray Rice has been thrown under the bus by the National Football League (NFL) and his former team, the Baltimore Ravens.

First, some background for the non-football fans. Rice was drafted by the Ravens in the second round (55th overall) of the 2008 NFL draft.  He signed a 4-year contract for $2.805 million plus a $1.1 million signing bonus. Last year, he signed a 5-year, $35 million contract, paying him a $15 million signing bonus.

Second, here are some cold facts:

  • On February 15, both Rice and his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, were arrested and charged with assault after a fight at an Atlantic City, N.J. casino.
  • On March 27, a grand jury indicted Rice on third-degree aggravated assault (charges against Palmer were dropped).
  • On March 28, Rice married Palmer (the date had been planned and announced before the assault charge).
  • On May 20, Rice was allowed to enter into a pretrial diversion program. Upon successful completion of the program, which will be a minimum of one year, the third-degree charge of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury would be dismissed. The arrest would remain on his record, but with no conviction.
  • On July 24, the NFL suspends Rice for 2 games.
  • On July 25, the Raven’s organization rallies around Rice.
  • On August 28, the NFL established a domestic violence policy for the league.
  • On September 8, the celebrity Website TMZ releases video of Rice knocking out his wife in an elevator and dragging her out of the elevator when it stopped .
  • On September 8, the Raven’s terminates Rice from the team.
  • On September 8, 2014, the NFL suspends Rice from the league indefinitely.
  • The Associated Press reports on Sept. 10th that a law enforcement official said he sent damaging video of Rice knocking out his then-fiancee to the NFL, despite League denials.

The above narrative is the only thing we know to be indisputable.

Prior to the video’s release, Rice had been caught on a security camera dragging his fiancée out of the elevator. That got him suspended for two games without pay. The penalty, which some criticized as too lenient, cost him about $530,000 in salary.

Now that everyone has seen the graphic video of the actual event, people have all of a sudden become filled with phony righteous indignation.  Rice should have been punished not because of the video, but because of the act itself. But doing a bait-and-switch on his punishment amounts to pilling on.

Now many professional athletes, entertainers, politicians, and the public want to make public statements about how terrible a person Ray Rice is.  Where was this outrage before the release of the video?  Where is the outrage from these athletes and entertainers about the precious Black children being killed in Chicago?  Where is their outrage about anything other than collecting a bigger paycheck?

To ultra-feminist groups, especially the National Organization of Women (NOW), why are you so selective in your outrage about how women are treated?  To this day, you have never criticized Beyoncé for objectifying herself and women in her music. Yet you criticize Hip Hop for the same thing.  Where is their outrage about a woman who raped a child in Arizona when he was 14 and now, at 20, is being forced to pay child support for a 6-year-old child he never knew existed?

It sickens me that people want to take, by all accounts, a good person and kick dirt in his face because he made a terribly horrible mistake; a mistake because there was nothing in his past that indicated this type of behavior. Even more troubling is the contention that Ray does not deserve a second chance. That’s a mighty high standard, considering human frailty.

There was absolutely nothing in the video that Rice hadn’t already admitted to police and the Baltimore Ravens. The Ravens have admitted as much.  The difference is that the NFL faced a growing backlash, based on the release of the video.

Rice is not guilty of breaking any laws. The criminal justice system – with everyone having access to the controversial video – treated Rice as the first-time offender that he was. He was dismissed by the NFL for violating a league’s “conduct” policy. In other words, for “conduct detrimental to the league.”  Once that is invoked by the league or a team, based on their collective bargaining agreement, punishment can be anything from a fine to being banned from the sport.

The NFL, after meting out a 2-game suspension, changed the rules in the middle of the ride. After serving half of his 2-game suspension, Rice was retroactively given a death sentence.

The Story of Electricity in America

Can you imagine a world in which you depended on unreliable energy to light up your world? Sounds like an unstable place to call home. That’s why the Story of Electricity is so important notes Tom Pyle from the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

IER reports solar energy accounts for only 0.2 percent of the electricity Americans use everyday. Wind and solar aren’t much better. Altogether, wind and solar provide about 4 percent of our electricity. Without affordable, reliable sources of power, our future would be pretty dark.  IER created the Twitter campaign #StoryofElectricity, which presents, among other things, these truths about American produced electricity:

EDITORS NOTE: For those interested in learning more about this topic may visit the power of electricity.

Obama’s plan to defeat Islamic State just ‘toothless’ platitudes

All Midshipmen and Cadets, while matriculating at one of the US Service Academies, are taught to fight to “Win” in academics, on the athletic field, and ultimately in combat—they learn that there is no substitute for victory!!

Unfortunately, the resident in the Oval Office’s plan to defeat the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), is not a serious plan; there is no consistency, no clarity, and no obvious will to “Win”  Allies have observed that Obama is calling the world to ride to an uncertain trumpet when he is not committed to it.  The failure to execute an effective air campaign (the 150 air strikes over many weeks should have occurred on the first day of air campaign and everyday thereafter).  The repeated statements by Obama that there will be no boots on the ground, and failure of the air campaign to strike supply lines, long convoys of armed terrorists, and weapons depots in Syria has signaled ISIL that the plan is not a serious plan.

The allies have watched over the last 6 years as Obama walked away from the victory in Iraq & refused to leave a residual US military force in Iraq overriding his own generals, Obama walked away from air strikes in Syria 3 years ago when Assad crossed the red line, he took out a friendly leader in Libya then walking away from a destabilized Libya that resulted in Al Q’ieda taking over Libya, walked away from the friendly Egyptian Army Junta after it removed the Moslem Brotherhood Mosci who was killing Christians, and Obama has sent a signal that he will walk away from Afghanistan leaving it to the Taliban and Al Q’ieda—Middle East & NATO allies are not interested in joining a consortium with a quitter who can’t be trusted to “Win” anything.

U.S. air power, the Kurdish Forces, the Iraqi Army (with an anti-Sunni Government), and the free Syrian Army cannot possibly defeat the 30,000 man ISIL army which is projected to soon grow to 60,000 men (ISIL is selling $3 million in black market oil to Turkey every day to fund its military operation).  Air strikes will not be sufficient, when there is no effective command and control organization on the ground, there is no effective reconnaissance operation on the ground, when the US does not have the ability to capture combatants in order to develop actionable intelligence.  The US is planning to spend one year to train 5000 Free Syrians Army personnel, while ISIL grows from 30,000 to 60,000 in the same year.

After 9/11 the US inserted small Special Operation Units and CIA Paramilitary forces on the ground in Afghanistan to coordinate with the Northern Alliance, in order to drive the Taliban, Al Q’ieda, and Osama Bin Laden out of Afghanistan  The failure of Obama to commit small Special Operations and CIA Paramilitary forces units on the ground in Iraq is dooming Obama’s plan to failure—Obama keeps telling ISIL that there will be no boots on the ground—what other occupant of the Oval Officer in 238 years has ever told the enemy what the US will not do?.

The Obama administration continues to send confusing messages to reluctant US allies who are being asked to join a coalition to defeat ISIL, to the American people who are being asked to support Obama’s inept plan to defeat ISIL (68% of the American people believe Obama’s plan to “Win” is folly), and to Obama’s leftist allies in the Democratic Party to prevent them from being alarmed before the November election (the leftists, Socialists, and Marxists in the Democratic party do not want Obama to carry out a comprehensive “War Plan” to defeat ISIL they want to take funds away from the US military and use those funds to expand the bloated and inept welfare state rift with fraud).

Obama doesn’t have the strength of purpose to do what Presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan did to protect the homeland.  Obama’s political policies are allowing ISIL terrorists to flood across the wide open southern border and threaten American citizens, while he hollows out the US Armed Forces, and creates a $1 trillion annual US deficient leading the nation to the brink of bankruptcy.

For the last 6 years, the Obama administration used drones to kill Al Q’ idea leaders who were immediately replaced by the next Al Q’ieda terrorist in line. They killed one leader after another who had a great deal of valuable intelligence, instead of employing small Special Operations units to capture the leaders, interrogate them, and develop the requisite intelligence to oppose the spread of Al Q’ieda worldwide.  The net result of the killer drone policy that the Obama administration bragged about, has been that ISIL metastasized and Islamic terrorism spread throughout the world like cancer—while the Obama administration was blinded because they lacked actionable intelligence from captured Islamic terrorists.

Obama didn’t want to capture, interrogate, and jail terrorists in Gitmo, all he wanted to do was to kill terrorists in the field so he could close the Gitmo operation.  The Gitmo interrogations developed an incredible amount of actionable intelligence, including providing the intelligence that led to the location of Bin Laden’s messenger, and that messenger ultimately led to US forces to the location of Osama Bin Laden’s lair in Pakistan, where SEAL Team SIX took out Bin Laden.

There is no Obama administration plan to pull out all the stops to “Crush” ISIL.  We encourage you to read the below listed macro approach to Crush ISIL written by the former National Security Advisor in the Reagan Administration, the Hon Robert C. McFarlane, USNA ’59, Col-USMC (Ret); he is calling for the effective employment of diplomacy, applying economic pressure, training  & support of Special Operation Forces, and not to continue following the past policy of  “leading from behind”, but to exercise traditional effective US leadership to “Win”.

Robert  “Bud” McFarlane is the Senior Advisor for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and supports the Combat Veterans For Congress.

A plan for crushing the Islamic State: Toothless diplomacy is no longer an option

By Robert McFarlane – – Wednesday, September 3, 2014

It is astonishing that nearly six years into the tenure of any administration the commander-in-chief would acknowledge publicly that he has no strategy for addressing an evident, serious threat to American interests.

Last week, marauders from the so-called Islamic State overran Tabqa air base in Syria, where MANPADS, or man-portable air-defense systems, are stored. These are the weapons that can bring down commercial aircraft. Considering the pledge of this group’s leader to take the war to the United States, they now have the means to do so whether targeting the takeoff of a U.S. commercial airliner from Dubai, or in a few weeks after penetrating the Mexican border, from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in Dallas.

Historically, every new administration spends the first year of its tenure enunciating goals — essentially, to keep the peace and establish a climate at home and abroad in which American interests can be advanced — and then developing strategies for achieving them in specific regions of the world. The process begins with the president stating his view of what our regional interests are, inviting the intelligence community and the Cabinet to identify how those interests are threatened, and then tasking these principals and staff to develop a range of integrated political, economic and military measures for defending and advancing American interests throughout the world. By the end of the first year, the president has evaluated the options submitted to him and has made decisions among them. He then goes about implementing them by publishing and explaining them to three constituencies — the American people, the U.S. Congress and our allies. While this process involves hard work and disciplined leadership, it’s not rocket science. Doing it well yields enormous benefits. It engenders confidence among the American people and nurtures cohesion and support among our allies. Finally, it puts adversaries on notice that we are a serious nation that has the will, the capability, a strategic plan and the resources to prevail against any challenge they might consider posing.

Since World War II, U.S. presidents have engaged this strategic process as a proven means for defining and announcing our interests overseas, assessing how they are threatened, and developing effective strategies designed to deter, or — if deterrence fails — to prevail in any conflict well in advance of any such conflict. In the Reagan administration, I had the privilege of managing that process, and in the ensuing years, it proved invaluable not only in identifying — and pre-empting — challenges still over the horizon, but in crisis management as well. In the remaining years of the current administration, there is still time for President Obama to lead in the resolution of the plethora of crises before us — starting with the threats posed by the Islamic State and concurrently in Ukraine, China and Iran.

Modern terrorism by Islamist groups has posed a “clear and present danger” to our country for more than 30 years. In Iraq, we are faced with an especially challenging form of it.  A well-financed, well-armed and well-trained barbarous force has declared its intention, inter alia, to conduct operations against the United States on its way to establishing an Islamic caliphate of global reach and jurisdiction.

Egypt’s Ultraconservative Islamists Back Sisi, Seek To Eclipse Brotherhood

Given the plausibility of their executing such a plan, the first comment our president must make is that this movement of uncivilized savages puts us all at risk — from Irbil to London, Chicago, Tokyo and Beijing — and that there is no basis for trying to reason with brainwashed, ideological, totalitarian, genocidal criminals bent on pursuit of an imperial strategy. The second is that they must be destroyed. Mr. Obama’s statement from Estonia on Wednesday was a good, though belated, beginning.

Developing a political, economic and military strategy for containing and then destroying the Islamic State is not something that will come easily for the president, given his proclivities toward engagement and toothless diplomacy. Yet in some respects, his task has been rendered less onerous.  Politicians in every civilized state — especially European states that have known this menace was coming for years — understand that if they don’t join in countering this scourge in Syria and Iraq, they will face it in their own countries before long.  This week, the president’s task is to forge consensus among his political counterparts in Western Europe to direct NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove and the NATO military committee to work with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for overcoming this menace.

Economically, it’s time to lean hard on the Gulf Arabs to shut down their formal and informal funding of radical Islamists. The diplomacy needed to get this done ought also to be a little easier than it would have been even five years ago. Their tenure is at risk, and they are palpably conscious of it. Separately, our work with European allies should involve closing their financial institutions to Islamist transactions.

The U.S. military must work with Kurdish, Kuwaiti, Egyptian, United Arab Emirates, Saudi, Jordanian and Iraqi forces to forge a strategy, first to contain and then to destroy the Islamic State’s forces. U.S. and allied tactical aviation can help limit the enemy’s mobility and provide fire support during engagements. However, the training and supervision of ground forces from the aforementioned countries in the struggle to regain lost territory must fall to experienced U.S. special operations advisory personnel — several thousand of them.

By their brashness and brutality, the Islamists may have provided an impetus and a window for the civilized world to come together and reverse their gains. It will take extraordinary leadership from Washington to oversee this battle and stay the course. That window may not remain open for long.

As soon as we have stemmed this tide — a year from now — we must turn to the agenda that we have for so long avoided — bringing the moderate Arabs, Kurds and Israel into a sustained conversation on regional security that leads toward reconciling their differences. To do so offers a revered place in history for the American president. Yet it will require a far better understanding of the nature of the challenge than has thus far been apparent, together with the courage and commitment to lead such an effort successfully.

ABOUT ROBERT MCFARLANE

Robert McFarlane served as President Reagan’s national-security adviser. He is currently a senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

RELATED ARTICLE:Egypt: Don’t Limit Action to ISIS; Islamists Elsewhere Share its Ideology

Strong Percentages of Americans Unlikely to Consider Voting for a Muslim, Transgender, or Agnostic/Atheist Presidential Candidate

NEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ — It’s all about the issues, right? Not necessarily, according to a new Harris Poll. When asked to describe their likelihood to consider voting for a presidential candidate fitting a varied series of backgrounds, there are clearly certain characteristics which are deterrents to strong percentages of Americans. Specifically, just over half (52%) say they’d be either “not that likely” or “not at all likely” to consider voting for a Muslim candidate (vs. 28% who would be “very” or “somewhat” likely to do so); meanwhile, pluralities would be unlikely to consider voting for a transgender man or woman (48%, vs. 34% who would be likely to do so) or an agnostic/atheist candidate (45% vs. 39%).

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,537 adults surveyed online between August 13 and 18, 2014. It should be noted that when evaluating these hypothetical candidates, respondents were asked to assume each was qualified and in alignment with their own political views. It should be noted that while these questions give a good measure of the relative impact of different characteristics and backgrounds, they do not necessarily predict their real impact on voting behavior because such decisions are made based on a more comprehensive set of factors.

(Full results, including data tables, available here)

Voting booth biases

Americans are more split on the idea of a Hindu candidate (39% not likely vs. 37% likely) and a candidate unwilling to discuss his or her religious views (40% and 41%, respectively).

As for a candidate who won’t discuss their sexuality, 43% would be likely to consider such a candidate while 36% would not. While likely support outpaces opposition in this case, it’s important to note that this still means fewer than half of Americans would support a candidate declining to discuss this matter but who otherwise aligns with their political worldview. Similar results can be seen for Buddhist (43% likely and 36% not) and Mormon (47% and 35%, respectively) candidates, as well as candidates identifying as bisexual (46% and 38%, respectively) and homosexual (49% and 34%, respectively).

The safe bets? Majorities of Americans would be likely to consider voting for Protestant (72%), Catholic (72%) and Jewish (69%) candidates, candidates without children (72%), and candidates who have never been married (70%).

Generational disparities

Matures are more inclined than any other generation to say that they’d be unlikely to consider voting for a Muslim presidential candidate, while opposition is lowest among Millennials (74% Matures vs. 58% of Baby Boomers, 51% of Gen Xers and 39% of Millennials). As a rule, opposition to most of the candidate types evaluated is higher among older generations:

  • Looking at sexuality as a factor, older Americans are more inclined than their younger counterparts to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for transgender (59% Matures, 55% Baby Boomers, 46% Gen Xers, 37% Millennials), bisexual (52%, 43%, 33% and 30%, respectively), or homosexual (47%, 39%, 30% and 26%, respectively) candidates, along with those unwilling to discuss their sexuality (47%, 40%, 30% and 31%, respectively).
  • Turning to the impact of religious views, older Americans are also more inclined than those in younger generations to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for Agnostic/Atheist (65% Matures, 50% Baby Boomers, 40% Gen Xers, 34% Millennials), Hindu (50%, 44%, 35% and 32%, respectively), or Buddhist (48%, 43%, 34% and 27%, respectively) candidates, as well as those unwilling to discuss their religious views (52%, 45%, 39% and 30%, respectively).

Millennials, on the other hand, are more likely than any other generation to display reluctance to vote for a Mormon candidate (42% Millennials vs. 34% Gen Xers, 33% Baby Boomers and 27% Matures).

Political partialities

A similar story emerges along political lines, with Republicans more likely than Democrats or Independents to show resistance to many of the candidate types under consideration:

  • Looking at religion as a factor, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or Independents to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for Muslim (73% Republican, 39% Democrat and 53% Independent),  Agnostic/Atheist (63%, 37% and 40%, respectively), Hindu (55%, 31% and 38%, respectively), or Buddhist (53%, 28% and 35%, respectively) candidates, as well as those unwilling to discuss their religious views (56%, 34% and 34%, respectively).
  • As to the impact of sexuality, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or Independents to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for transgender (68% Republican, 34% Democrat, 50% Independent), bisexual (57%, 27% and 34%, respectively), or homosexual (52%, 23% and 31%, respectively) candidates, along with those unwilling to discuss their sexuality (49%, 31% and 31%, respectively).

Moving in the opposite direction, Democrats are more likely than Independents – who in turn are more likely than Republicans – to indicate reluctance when it comes to voting for a Mormon candidate (45% Democrat, 33% Independent, 25% Republican).

Independents present an interesting case: on the one hand, they are more likely than Democrats to show reluctance to vote for Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, transgender, bisexual or gay candidates; on the other, their views are more in line with those of Democrats in responding to candidates who choose not to discuss their religious views or sexuality.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online, in English, within the United States between August 13 and 18, 2014among 2,537 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, The Harris Poll avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Poll surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in our panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

SOURCE: The Harris Poll.

About The Harris Poll®

Begun in 1963, The Harris Poll is one of the longest running surveys measuring public opinion in the U.S. and is highly regarded throughout the world. The nationally representative polls, conducted primarily online, measure the knowledge, opinions, behaviors and motivations of the general public. New and trended polls on a wide variety of subjects including politics, the economy, healthcare, foreign affairs, science and technology, sports and entertainment, and lifestyles are published weekly. For more information, or to see other recent polls, visit the HarriPhoto – http://twitter.com/harrisints Poll News Room. To see other recent Harris Polls, please visit the Harris Poll News Room.

RELATED LINKS

http://www.harrisinteractive.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHarrisInteractive
http://twitter.com/harrispoll
http://www.facebook.com/HarrisPoll
http://www.facebook.com/harrisinteractive?ref=share
http://twitter.com/harrisint

EDITORS NOTE: These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls. The results of this Harris Poll may not be used in advertising, marketing or promotion without the prior written permission of The Harris Poll. Product and brand names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

Texas Sheriff says it’s “naive” to say Islamic State not here: “We have found Muslim clothing, they have found Quran books”

In June 2014, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) enunciated the concerns that increasing numbers of people have about jihadists exploiting our open Southern border when he said:

“This jihadist group ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have promised direct confrontation with America. He is looking forward to that day and he has said that publicly, we should believe him when he says that. These folks hate everything about the United States.” What’s more, “Of course the way they would come to the United States would be through the porous border with Mexico. The drug cartels will bring people into the country no matter who they are — for money. Everyone in the world knows that the border between the United States and Mexico is completely porous.”

Jihad terrorists and their enablers and accomplices have been entering the U.S. illegally by means of the Mexican border for many years. According to TheBlaze, “Hezbollah members and supporters have entered the U.S. through the southern border as early as 2002, with the case of Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a Mexican of Lebanese descent. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison by Mexican authorities on charges of organized crime and immigrant smuggling. Mucharrafille had owned a cafe in the border city of Tijuana, near San Diego. In 2002, he was arrested for smuggling 200 people into the U.S., including Hezbollah supporters, according to a 2009 Congressional report.” Nothing has changed since then. It’s only gotten worse.

“Texas Sheriff: Reports Warn Of ISIS Terrorist Cells Coming Across The Border,” CBS Houston, September 15, 2014 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Midland County, Texas (CBS HOUSTON) – Midland County Sheriff Gary Painter said that law enforcement agencies along the “wide open” border have received alerts to be on the lookout for terrorists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria crossing into the United States.

Painter, who said he has worked along the border for “about eight years,” stated that alerts have been issued to border law enforcement to be on the lookout for suspicious terrorist activity, specifically involving ISIS cells being smuggled into the United States.

“I received an intelligence report that said that there was ISIS cells that were active in the Juarez area, which is the northern part of the Chihuahua state, and that they were moving around over there, that there was some activity…” Painter told Fox News. The report asked “for the sheriffs along the border to be on the alert, for all law enforcement to be on the alert, and to be on the lookout for these people maybe trying to come across.”

Painter sidestepped any direct knowledge that ISIS, specifically, is along the border, but he reiterated that the border “is wide open.”

“Well I’m saying the border is wide open, there is no control on the border, it’s not shut off,” said Painter. “There’s places along the Rio Grande you can walk across, there’s no water in it. I worked the border for eight years I walked back and forth across the Rio Grande; I was in Mexico, I was on this side. I never got challenged.

“There’s always a way to get across, there’s coyotes that bring those people across for thousands of dollars.”

Painter noted that “Muslim” items have been strewn along the border and estimated that 10 to 15 million “undocumented aliens” have crossed the border.

“I think it’d be naive to say that (ISIS is) not here…We have found Muslim clothing, they have found Quran books that are lying on the side of the trail, so we know that there are Muslims that have come across and are being smuggled into the United States,” Painter told Fox News….

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Pro-Muslim Brotherhood DHS adviser let go amid allegations of coverup

Holder announces pilot programs to counter “violent extremism”

Muslim UN “high-level expert” says Muslims in West become terrorists because of “Islamophobes” and counter-terror legislation

Islamic State threatens to kill British aid worker who thought his work for Muslim charity would save him

Jordan: 32% of all registered marriages of Syrian refugees involved girls under 18

Liberated Women and the Traditional Family

Photo from Best of Feminist Memes.

My generation, born in the late 1930s and the 1940s, has witnessed a dramatic change in the role and the rights of women in America. A significant result of the women’s liberation movement is a change in the role of traditional marriage that was reported in early September.

If you count a generation as spanning 20 years,” wrote Terence P. Jeffery, an editor of CNSNews.com, “then approximately 36 percent of the American generation born from 1993 through 2012—which has begun turning 21 this year and will continue turning 21 through 2033—were born to unmarried mothers.”

By comparison, Jeffrey noted that “Back in 1940, only 3.8 percent of American babies were born to unmarried mothers. By 1960, it was still only 5.3 percent.” There was a time when being a single mother was regarded as a reflection of the woman’s moral values. How a society deals with issues affecting the family as its single most important factor reflects its attitudes regarding marriage.

“It is a statistical fact that the institution of the family,” wrote Jeffrey, “has been collapsing in American over the past 45 years.”

Another statistic has significance as well. Today 51% of the U.S. population is single. A new generation of Americans, men and women, have decided that a committed relationship holds little allure.

The call for women’s rights has a long history. In 1794, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women.” She would have felt at home in today’s society. After affairs with two men, giving birth to a daughter by one of them, she married William Godwin, one of the forefathers of the anarchist movement. She died ten days after giving birth to a daughter, Mary Shelley, who grew up to be the author of “Frankenstein.”

Militant political action in Britain began with the formation of the Woman’s Social and Political Union in 1903. Following World War I when women participated in the war industries and support services, they were granted the right to vote in 1918, but it would take until 1928 for the age to be lowered to 21. In the United States in 1848 Elizabeth Cady Stanton led a Women’s Rights Convention followed in 1863 of the Women’s National Loyal League by Susan B. Anthony who wrote and submitted a proposed right-to-vote amendment in 1878. It would take until 1920 for it to be ratified as the 19th Amendment.

feminist-meme23

Photo courtesy of Best of Feminist Memes.

The women’s rights movement as we know it gained momentum in the 1960s. It was led by a feminist, fellow writer and friend, Betty Friedan, who was also a committed Leftist and, in 1966, she would help create the National Organization for Women (NOW). In 1971, the National Women’s Political Caucus emerged, led by Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, and Gloria Steinem. Other groups were created as well. The effort to secure an Equal Rights Amendment, however, failed.

Aside from political rights, the issue that most concerned feminists was reproductive rights with the repeal of laws against abortion being the priority. The issue was decided, not by Congress or the states, but by a 1973 decision of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, that ruled 7-2 that the 14th Amendment extended a right of privacy and by extension the right of a woman to opt for an abortion.

That decision freed women both within and outside of marriage to abort an unwanted child. Unforeseen by the Court, was the rise of single-parent families led primarily by women.

As Jeffery noted “In the latest annual report to Congress on “Welfare Indicators and High Risk Factors,” the Department of health and Human Services pointed to the high rate of births to unmarried mothers, saying ‘data on non-marital births are important since historically a high proportion of welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage.’”

We have reached a point in just over a few decades in which the government, through bad economic policies and a myriad number of programs, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and others, has produced 109,631,000 people receiving benefits. They represent 35.4 percent of the overall population.

That’s a long way from the traditional family and it means that half of the working population is providing the funds for those who are unemployed or have stopped looking for work thanks to a stagnate economy.

The single-parent family led by women has denied generations of the young men they are raising the male role models they need to understand that being a father is as great a responsibility as being a mother.

Men have become dispensable except as sperm donors.

Male values of courage, comradeship, and leadership have to be learned from sources outside the single-mother unit.

Then, too, the feminist goal of being in the workplace also frequently means that pre-school children’s early formative years are handed over to strangers in childcare centers whether they come from one or two-parent families. The economy has required that both parents have to work—if work can be found in a society where more than 92 million Americans are unemployed or have, as noted above, ceased looking for a job.

This is not a screed against women’s rights. It is a look at the consequences of the goals feminists have fought to achieve over the past decades.

It’s not about their right to vote or to secure an education to achieve success in the business sector.

It’s about generations of young men and women growing up in a society where a “father” is not an integral part of the “family” and the price our society pays for that.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Traditional families are still best

The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop

Carly Fiorina is redefining feminism

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from the Best Feminist Memes.