Write us at: email@example.com
Issues of the Day
How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…
WAS JUSTICE SERVED TO CHRIS KYLE’S KILLER?
Long before the story of Chris Kyle made him famous via the silver screen, there was Chris Kyle, retired sniper, and hero to disabled veterans across the nation.
As much of a hero as he was out in the field, he was as much a hero back at home.
That’s part of why the story of his tragic demise at the hands of a Marine veteran is so tragic. He was killed by the man he was trying to help.
And now justice has been served as his killer has been found guilty.
The Daily Caller writes:
Eddie Ray Routh, 27, was found guilty of capital murder by a Texas jury in the murder of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield.
It took the jury only two hours to reach a unanimous verdict. Routh was immediately sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Kyle rose to fame as the most lethal sniper in American history with more than 160 confirmed kills. His autobiography, “American Sniper,” was made into the highest grossing war movie in history by director Clint Eastwood.
Kyle and Littlefield were murdered on Feb. 2, 2013, when the took Routh, also a veteran, to a gun range trying to help him with his post-traumatic stress. Routh shot Kyle and Littlefield in the back and head.
Routh has a history of mental illness and claimed he was legally insane at the time of killings.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott took to Twitter to express the feelings of millions of Americans.
We can only hope that Taya Kyle and the rest of his family will be able to use this verdict as a chance to move on and heal.
We thank the Kyle’s along with all other service members and service member’s family for their incredible sacrifice.
May God bless them.
When Harry Met Barack
In the 1989 movie, “When Harry Met Sally,” there is a famous restaurant scene in which Sally (Meg Ryan) and Harry (Billy Crystal) are having lunch when the subject turns to sex, and Sally feels called upon to prove that women can fake orgasms. Harry doesn’t believe it, so Sally starts to moan and groan and thrash around in her chair, seemingly oblivious to her surroundings. When the waiter approaches an elderly woman (director Rob Reiner’s mother, Estelle) and asks for her order, she indicates Sally and says, “I’ll have what she’s having.”
That pretty much sums up how I felt when I heard Barack Obama recently claim that the world is getting more peaceful and tolerant, and that Islamic terrorism is basically a hoax trumped up by the media. Or to paraphrase FDR, he would have us believe that we have nothing to fear but Fox News itself.
I gave up cigarettes over 40 years ago, but I might consider taking it up again if I could smoke what the stoner-in-chief is puffing on. While playing down the creeps who have brought the crucifixion out of mothballs, Obama would have us believe that the greatest peril we face is global-warming.
I grew up on movies about scientific geniuses – people like Pasteur, Edison, Wassell, Reed, Ehrlich and the Curies. The way you could tell they were geniuses was that they plowed ahead in spite of the doubters, and the way they tried and failed countless times before eventually proving their theories.
What they did not do was insist that the science was settled and that those who questioned them had evil intentions. What’s more, none of them looked or sounded like Al Gore, who apparently received a “D” in the only college science class he ever took before waking up one day to find himself the world’s greatest climatologist. I guess the Wizard of Oz must have left his PhD on the nightstand.
Moreover, none of the real scientists told lies about melting icebergs and vanishing polar bears. They did not predict that the ocean level would rise 20 feet and they did not label CO2 – the gas that plant life requires for survival – a pollutant. And, finally, they did not change the name of the deadly peril from something specific like “global warming” to something as vague and ephemeral as “climate change” as soon as it was discovered that the earth was cooling down.
Another thing they never did was begin referring to carbon dioxide simply as carbon because they were aware that people would associate carbon with the dirty smoke that spews from our car’s exhaust pipe.
Still another clue is that none of them became billionaires as Al Gore has by selling carbon dispensations to ecological sinners, the way the Catholic Church made a fortune of its own in the Middle Ages. In Gore’s case, he sells them to those wealthy loons who feel guilty about living in large homes, driving huge cars and flying hither and thither in private jets, the way the likes of Robert Kennedy, Jr., Michael Moore and Al Gore, do. In fact, Gore is such an inveterate hypocrite, he makes a point of paying for his own carbon footprints, but he pays it to a company he owns, thereby moving his dough from one pocket to another.
The essence of a moral dilemma for wealthy environmentalists is that the polar bears they believe are disappearing because man is melting their natural habitat are the ones who feast on seal pups. As you may recall, these same people used to go nuts over fur traders killing the adorable baby seals for their pelts.
These days, non-scientists are claiming that vaccines don’t really protect kids from life-threatening diseases, but, instead, like something concocted in Dr. Frankenstein’s cellar, make them autistic. In this case, their authority is an ex-Playboy centerfold named Jenny McCarthy, who at least looks better than Al Gore.
However, instead of dismissing it as poppycock, such eager-beaver presidential candidates as Chris Christie and Rand Paul, fearful of losing the flat-headed vote, started yammering about parental rights. While it’s true that those parents who don’t want their children vaccinated are free to home-school them, the fact remains that even the tots who don’t attend public school still socialize with other kids, and attend movies, sporting events and, alas, Disneyland.
As a safety precaution, keeping the unvaccinated out of public schools works about as well as releasing child molesters back into society on the condition that they live at least a thousand feet from a grammar school. Nobody ever seems to question the soundness of the plan even though the kids obviously have to pass by the pervert’s home on their way to school, the market or a playground.
When people point out the harm that Obama has done to America in six years, I think about the harm he has done to our perception of black people. I’m not talking about Michael Brown and the thugs who torched Ferguson or even the ignoramuses at the Grammy Awards who danced with their arms upraised in tribute to young Mr. Brown, who would still be alive if only he had raised his own arms and not charged the police officer like a rhino on steroids.
I’m referring to the college-educated likes of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Al Sharpton and Valerie Jarrett, who have done so much to make the black brand so toxic in 2015 America.
Although my beef with Fox is generally that far too much time is wasted on the likes of Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers and Alan Colmes, every once in a while Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s go-to guy on legal matters, is the one making my head explode. Recently, while speaking to Megyn Kelly, he let us know that, like Obama, he wants Gitmo shut down.
Not only did he not make a semi-persuasive case for it, but he admitted that he had no idea what should be done with the 150 terrorists who are still there. However, that didn’t stop him from blasting Sen. Tom Cotton who had just told a Pentagon bureaucrat that he wished that the captive jihadists would rot in hell, but short of that he was willing to have them rot in Gitmo. It clearly irked Napolitano, but I suspect that my whole-hearted “Amen!” was merely one of many.
Although I didn’t vote for him, I’m embarrassed that our president claimed that the four people murdered at a kosher market in Paris were “random victims.” Even though their killer, Amedy Coulibay, phoned a TV station from the market to say: “I have 16 hostages and I have killed four of them, and I targeted them because they were Jewish,” it cuts no ice with Obama. Even the fact that the victims were all buried in Israel failed to clue the terminally clueless one.
But, then, I suppose if barbarians screaming “Allah Akbar” before killing Christians doesn’t make them Muslims, there’s no reason that shopping in a kosher market and being interred in Israel would suggest they might be Jews.
Finally, it seems only fair to ask: If 11 million illegals are, as the Democrats insist, such a boon to our economy, why didn’t they stay home and help the Mexican economy? And, more to the point, how is it that Mexico was so anxious to see these potential entrepreneurs leave, they gave them a boost over the fence?
The fatal flaw in the Iran deal
WASHINGTON — A sunset clause?
The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed … development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.
Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.
Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.
Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.
Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.
Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?
It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.
It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.
There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.
Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.
And no sunset.
That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the U.S. will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.
Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.
Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.