Liberal Ideology’s Price

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: National Review

Photo Credit: National Review

One of the many unintended consequences of the political crusade for increased homeownership among minorities, and low-income people in general, has been a housing boom and bust that left many foreclosed homes that had to be rented because there were no longer enough qualified buyers.

The repercussions did not stop there. Many homeowners have discovered that when renters replace homeowners as their neighbors, the neighborhood as a whole can suffer.

The physical upkeep of the neighborhood, on which everyone’s home values depend, tends to decline. “Who’s going to paint the outside of a rented house?” one resident was quoted as saying in a recent New York Times story.

Renters also tend to be of a lower socioeconomic level than homeowners. They are also less likely to join neighborhood groups, including neighborhood watches to keep an eye out for crime. In some cases, renters have introduced unsavory or illegal activities into family-oriented communities of homeowners that had not had such activities before.

None of this should be surprising. Individuals and groups of all sorts have always differed from one another in many ways, throughout centuries of history and in countries around the world. Left to themselves, people tend to sort themselves out into communities of like-minded neighbors.

Read more from this story HERE.

Another View: Men are Winning the War on Women

/4 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: People.com

Photo Credit: People.com

Miley Cyrus’ performance at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards was important.

Cyrus unwittingly transmitted a critical message – Men are winning the war on women. In the 60’s and 70’s, women made a concerted effort to escape the kitchen and achieve workplace and social equality with men. And by many measures, women have made great strides toward that end. But popular culture tells a different story, and it’s the giant teddy bear on stage that we ignore at own peril. Somewhere along the way, men have hijacked the feminist message and rephrased it to their own advantage. This new mantra goes something like this — feminism means sexual freedom, and sexual freedom means having lots of sex – whenever, whenever and with whomever.

The net result of this emergent sexual freedom is feminism turned on its head. Women today are more objectified than ever. With the commitment-free “hook up” culture, sex on a date or in a relationship is an expected part of the deal. If a woman demurs, she is labeled “afraid” or “repressed.” Culturally, a woman’s ability to “say no” is at an all-time low. They’ve been duped into believing that men’s sexual expectations – promiscuity for everyone without commitment or consequences – equal female empowerment. And, in case you somehow missed this development, Cyrus’s “performance” in her flesh-colored bra and panties should’ve gotten your attention.

Look at the performance last weekend. Three fully-clothed men – Robin Thicke along with hip hop artists, 2 Chainz and Kendrick Lamar – either casually stand around or saunter across the stage with microphones in hand, while nearly two dozen half-naked women gyrate and twerk around them. The Cyrus/Thicke performance liberated no one—not the women on stage nor any woman in the estimated 10.1 million viewing audience.

And don’t kid yourself; Cyrus, Thicke, and the rest of popular media feed and strengthen this prevalent misogynistic mentality. Our culture not only tolerates it, it celebrates it.

Don’t blame Miley. Thank her. At least she got your attention.

________________________________________________________

Amy Efaw is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, the mother of five children, and a self-described “soccer mom extraordinaire.” A former Army officer and freelance journalist, Ms. Efaw now lives in Denver, Colorado. She has written novels for teens, and she plans to write many more.

The Most Dangerous Domestic Spying Program is Common Core

/5 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: ben swann

Photo Credit: ben swann

Earlier this year, revelations about the Department of Justice spying on the Associated Press were quickly followed by revelations that the NSA was collecting phone data on all Verizon, and then all American cell phone, users. Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing drew yet more attention to the issue, and domestic surveillance programs have remained a top issue in people’s minds ever since.

While Americans focus on institutions like the CIA and NSA, though, programs are being implemented which would lead to a much more institutional way of tracking citizens. Obamacare is one of these, but Common Core Standards – the federal educational program – is the most eyebrow-raising.

Bill Gates was one of the leaders of Common Core, putting his personal money into its development, implementation and promotion, so it’s unsurprising that much of this data mining will occur via Microsoft’s Cloud system.

Even the Department of Education, though, admits that privacy is a concern, and that that some of the data gathered may be “of a sensitive nature.” The information collected will be more than sensitive; much of it will also be completely unrelated to education. Data collected will not only include grades, test scores, name, date of birth and social security number, it will also include parents’ political affiliations, individual or familial mental or psychological problems, beliefs, religious practices and income.

In addition, all activities, as well as those deemed demeaning, self-incriminating or anti-social, will be stored in students’ school records. In other words, not only will permanently stored data reflect criminal activities, it will also reflect bullying or anything perceived as abnormal. The mere fact that the White House notes the program can be used to “automatically demonstrate proof of competency in a work setting” means such data is intended to affect students’ futures.

Read more from this story HERE.

Calling it Treason

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

We stand on the brink of an illegal exercise of military power in a part of the world we have no need to be in, except that we have a president who purposefully keeps us there by suppressing our own development of energy resources and embroiling us in their internecine warfare. We could have walked away from the Middle East already and left them to their own savagery, but the president insists that we remain inextricably tied to their historical need to kill each other so that we can overpay for oil, both monetarily and with American lives. Thus, as technology enables us to break free of dependence upon Middle East oil, our president bends over backwards to ensure that never happens. What sort of leader purposefully compels his country and its people to participate in practices and policies that are detrimental to their safety and survival?

Even worse, when he can be shown to have chosen sides, his allegiance rests with terrorists and psychopaths. His affinity for Islam and its practitioners, as seen in the influence he grants them in the formation and direction of U.S. policy, is well known. Outspoken detractors of the United States and proponents of worldwide Sharia are welcome guests at the White House. They have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. They direct the content of discourse and training about who and what they are. Our blindness toward their hatred and objectives, and perhaps our administration’s shared stake in that hatred of the United States, was manifested in the obscene spectacle of a Muslim cleric insulting and damning our dead special forces troops at their own memorial service. That event was a natural consequence of the sort of brainless political correctness that pervades the left. So too was what Nidal Hasan did at Fort Hood. Such “tolerance” is a top-down phenomena.

Who doubts that what Hasan did was terrorism? Of course, for the terrorist, what he does is soldiering for his cause. It is eternal war for the supremacy of Islam, not terrorism as such, and in the eyes of the jihadist, the enemy always has it coming. To the jihadist, it is no more terrorism than if a U.S. Marine fires on the enemy in battle. But why does the administration not see what Hasan did as terrorism? They had to call it something for public consumption, and since the president does not see a premeditated attack on his own unarmed service men and women in the global advancement of Islam as terrorism, it defaulted to “workplace violence”. Apparently terrorism is defined not by ideology or method, but by location. Still, to so blatantly lie about something so obvious, without the slightest concern over pushback by those who see the lie for what it is, or who suffer its ill effects, is passive aggression on steroids against America.

When the president picks who he will support and who he will condemn on the international stage, he consistently sides with those who hate the United States and the Judeo-Christian principles upon which it was founded. President Obama has willfully enabled Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program entirely without resistance, other than UN sanctions, which have failed. In Egypt, Mubarak’s faults were well documented, but so too were his assets in terms of peace and stability in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the president purposefully aided his overthrow in order to replace him with members of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which collaborated with the Nazis and which has, at its core, goals and objectives that are antithetical to the security and safety of the United States.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama’s Rhetoric Comes Up Short Compared to Past Presidents

/1 Comment/in , /by

Barack ObamaOver the ages leadership in democracies has been symbolized by ringing declarations.

We have, for example, John Kennedy’s magisterial:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Or Franklin Roosevelt’s request that a declaration of war be passed by Congress:

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us…

While President Obama is loath to assume the mantle of commander-in-chief, how does his team inspire or explain to Americans his approach?

Read more from this story HERE.

The Left Hijacks “I Have a Dream” and Turns it into “I Have a Scheme”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: Irish Central

Photo Credit: Irish Central

A lot has transpired in the 50 years since civil rights activists marched peacefully on Washington DC. to hear Dr. Martin Luther King give his profound and now famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

At the time, it was estimated 250,000 people packed the Washington mall to express their support for equal rights for black Americans.

Dr. Kings message was one of healing, unity and equality for all Americans. His dream for the country was for a citizen to be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.

Dr. Kings insisted that his equal rights movement be a peaceful one, even in the face of violence and insults.

But Dr. Kings life was cut short by a snipers bullet 5 years later and he wasn’t able to help steer the civil rights movement in the direction he was hoping.

In the 50 years since Dr. King gave his great speech, the nation responded with civil rights acts, a “war on poverty” and thousands of laws designed to help black families step into the American dream.

During this time, we have had black Supreme Court justices, powerful members of congress and finally a black president. The opportunity has been given to those who strive to achieve the American dream, if they wish to reach out and grab it.

But the government programs created to help black families out of poverty and assimilate into our culture have had a devastatingly negative effect. Once a strong family oriented culture, that ethos was pulverized by government programs that discouraged the presence of a husband in the household.

Somewhere along the way, the left (Democrat Party) hijacked the civil rights “movement” and forgotten is the fact the Republican Party was the champion of civil rights.

The social engineering by the left has resulted in a government dependent class of people where the out of wedlock birthrate is 73% and the rate of abortion is 43%. Crime is rampant and black youth raised in single parent households disproportionately fill America’s prisons.

Many of the black leaders, all members of the Democrat Party, making speeches in the national mall, are wedded to a message that preaches anger, divisiveness and grievance…Just the opposite of what Dr. King wished for. Many of those leaders make big money out of keeping the divisiveness going and capitalizing on the blame game.

Out of all of the speakers at the national mall today, in front of the estimated crowd of 20,000, not one Republican or conservative black leader was invited to speak. Evidently the left doesn’t want to hear another viewpoint. A viewpoint that might have spoken the truth about the plight of the American black family and what the Democrat Party has inflicted on them.

From a Human Events article titled: Why Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican:

“In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.”

Dr. King was a strong believer in an intact American family structure….He would not be pleased to see what has been done to the black family under the guise of: “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you”

_____________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

Does Obama Know he’s Fighting on al-Qaeda’s Side?

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaeda.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qaeda – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qaeda’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qaeda for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qaeda could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qaeda, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

Read more from this story HERE.

Clashing Claims – Church, State, and Free Enterprise

/12 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: National Review

Photo Credit: National Review

The Supreme Court of New Mexico yesterday ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony — even though doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs. As Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elane Photography, explained: “The message a same-sex commitment ceremony communicates is not one I believe.”

But New Mexico’s highest court, deciding an appeal of the case, ruled against Elane Photography, concluding that neither protections of free speech nor of free exercise of religion apply.

Elaine and her husband, Jon, both committed Christians, run their small photography business in Albuquerque, N.M. In 2006, she declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the business had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation by declining to use its artistic and expressive skills to communicate what was said and what occurred at the ceremony.

The commission ruled this way according to New Mexico’s human-rights law, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations (“any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . or goods to the public”) on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation — among other protected classes.

Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gays and lesbians, but only of such a same-sex ceremony, because of the owners’ belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. New Mexico law agrees — it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages. Additionally, there were other photographers in the Albuquerque area who could have photographed the ceremony.

Read more from this story HERE.

Where Did Syria’s Chemical Weapons Come From?

/6 Comments/in , /by

syria_WMDAs the news stories mount regarding Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s decision to move his chemical weapons stockpile from storage to areas closer to rebel locations, there is one thing the mainstream media is not commenting on: How Syria acquired what is reported to be one of the world’s largest arsenals of bio-chemical WMD? More to the point, what they are not reporting is this: From where did the Assad regime acquire their bio-chemical WMD?

In 2006, former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book detailing how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria, before the US-led action to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s WMD threat, by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

As reported in the New York Sun on January 26, 2006:

“‘There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”

“Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam ‘transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.’

Read more from this story HERE.

Losing Family, Losing God, Losing the Country

/13 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Red State

Photo Credit: Red State

John Adams once said, to the chagrin of libertarians through the ages, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Indeed, many of the problems we see manifested in our nation today, from the refusal of the president and attorney general to enforce the laws of the land to the Supreme Court finding a right to sexual perversion, have their genesis in the fact that it has become déclassé among the self- described elites to look upon religion as anything other than a curious practice engaged in by proles.

How did we get to this point where we have a government that is fundamentally hostile to religion and religious expression? Where we have a president who repeatedly defines Freedom of Religion as a much more narrow Freedom of Worship?

In a new book called “How the West Really Lost God,” Hoover Institution Research Fellow Mary Eberstadt posits that we stopped becoming a religious people because we destroyed the family…

Contrary to the prevailing theory on secularization, that a decline in religion leads to a decline in family formation, presumably as we become more tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Eberstadt makes a convincing case that religion and family exist side by side in what she terms a “double helix” analogous to DNA structure: that neither can survive without the other and neither can be stronger than the other.

Read more from this story HERE.