An Open Letter to Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe

September 19th, 2017

An Open Letter to Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe

I was born in Los Angeles, California and raised in Ohio. I have taught Political Science at the collegiate level in Cincinnati, been published in The Wall Street Journal and am in my 12th year of research for a forthcoming book on Columbine.

For the past seven years I have made Rockbridge County, Virginia, my home.

The one and only reason I live in Lexington, Virginia is, because it is the final resting place of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson. Their lives, character, faith, integrity, honor and testimony shone so brightly a century and a half after their decease, that there is no other place on the Earth I want to be, but where they lived and served.

There is something deeply and morally wrong with anyone, who objects to these two great Virginians—great Americans being honored by the native State, for which they gave their lives, limbs and blood in selfless patriotic service.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower kept Lee’s portrait in his executive office, while president. Churchill extolled him as the greatest American. Ulysses S. Grant threatened to resign from the U.S. Army, if Lee were tried for treason.

The statue that marks the grave of “Stonewall” Jackson was paid for not only by the veterans, who served under him, but by financial contributions from former slaves, whom he had taught to read in violation of Virginia law.

When a Lexington local assailed Jackson for breaking the law to “teach those people”, Jackson uncharacteristically lost his temper and shouted, “If you were a Christian you would not say so!”

After the war, it was Lee who broke social convention at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, by kneeling beside a former slave, who had mortified the White congregation by kneeling at the altar.

Asked afterward by a bigot why a man like himself would kneel beside a former slave, Lee simply chastised him, “The ground is always level at the foot of the cross.”

The anniversary of the deaths of Lee and of Jackson were long commemorated in this Commonwealth by veterans of the North, who were often the honored keynote speakers invited to praise the virtues of their once-foes.

Every monument to a Confederate Virginian is a war memorial to an American veteran.

It has been the mark of manhood and civility and longstanding American tradition to leave politics out of the way we honor our veterans. They fought the battles; we did not. They shed the blood; we did not. They reconciled with their enemies; we did not.

End of subject. It is not for children born a hundred and fifty years later to re-adjudicate the past and expose to double jeopardy men their own contemporaries exonerated.

It is the height of arrogance to suppose that you know more about these men and their times than their even contemporaries. The command of God remains, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”

It is to God you will assuredly answer for its violation.

If you find it impossible to respect your elders, attempt at least to revere your betters.

The destruction of Virginia’s monuments to her war dead is sacrilege and those, who urge and execute it, are nothing more than cemetery vandals. There is no honor in this course of wanton destruction and, morally, you equate yourself with ISIS, which shares your contempt for actual culture, something you both so manifestly lack. It is more than history, more than art.

No matter.. No one will remember you in any 150 years. Nothing you do can make anything like the mark these great Virginians made on history’s ledger. Just being you another day is your own punishment and yet you still face God for what you propose to do as well. Something is deeply, horribly wrong with your soul, Sir. And you know it. So does all Virginia.

I have strived to be civil, but you do not make it easy. Smearing reputations, slandering saints and tearing down what better men raised has zero to do with love, unity, tolerance, acceptance, diversity and coexistence.

It’s just the usual political spoils game, playing one race/class/group against another to score a win at any cost. The mean, petty loathing of Virginia’s first string heroes outs you as a raging hypocrite just as you were trying to pass for intelligent. What a piece of work.

Just leave the statues, graves, monuments and memorials right where the grown-ups put them, Terry. Just fool around doing nothing, you know, like back at Georgetown. Easy.

That’s all I ask. And about the most anybody expects of you. Aren’t you tired yet of just being the same old failure and lurching from bungled debacle to bungled debacle?

Why not shock the world: open a book, educate yourself and do something less horrible than usual. Resign, even, and leave Virginians to govern Virginia. What a concept.

Shouldn’t you be ruining Syracuse instead of Richmond?

With all due respect,
Sherwin W. Dillar

Trumps Win Means More Than Victory

November 11th, 2016

Donald Trump’s astounding win at the polls last Tuesday means so much more than simple repudiation of the Obama/Clinton political machine. It is also a repudiation of the EPSS (Elite Political Sewer System) that exists in this nation today. EPSS dominates politics in this nation on both sides of the aisle, and Americans are getting fed up. From George Bush and Mitt Romney to Nancy Pelosi, HRC and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Americans have had enough of the arrogance and self-ingratiating life-styles of our “public servants”.

Why does it sound like a foreign concept to many that our nation was founded based on religious freedom, inalienable rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Our nation was founded by tough mavericks. Mostly Christian people who believed in charity but not welfare. They believed in hard work and a vision. It took much hard work and many hard fought battles to win the independence of this nation. And now that we have forged it into the greatest nation on the planet, everyone wants to come here to live. But the founding fathers and our original settlers could have never envisioned such a corruption of the foundation of our homeland.

So what else does Trump’s win mean?  It means that the constitution and the second amendment in particular will more than likely survive the onslaught of attacks by liberals and organizations like the ACLU over the next generation.

Trump’s victory means that many of us can actually enjoy watching liberal news programs. The lame-stream media are desperately grasping at straws, searching in vain for that one silver bullet that would explain HRC’s dramatic defeat. They get it so very wrong, time after time. In liberal media, excuses are preferable to facing the sad reality that their pundits ignore. That reality is, simply stated, HRC is a deplorably corrupt individual.

As Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen wrote yesterday, “There are zero electoral votes in the State of Denial”. And BTW, I do not recall anyone protesting or rioting when the most socialist president to ever serve was elected. And reelected.

“A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” — Socrates



WikiLeaks: CNN’s Gloria Borger Describes ‘GOP Hell,’ Calls John Podesta a ‘Star’

November 2nd, 2016

Wikileaks is just confirming what we already knew regarding the biased, dishonest, lying MSM.  Borger is such an obvious shill/stooge for the dems. Like slime, the truth now oozes out, for all to see. This shows “we deplorables” just how really bad and deep the corruption runs. Vaguely disguised as a journalist, Borger pimps for Clinton and demonstrates her disdain for the electoral process and the voters. Let’s send the likes of Borger and Brazille and the rest of these shills and crooks, a strong message and elect Trump! BTW, Is anyone old enough to even remember journalism being an honorable profession??


WikiLeaks: CNN’s Gloria Borger Describes ‘GOP Hell,’ Calls John Podesta a ‘Star’

by Ben Kew
1 Nov, 2016

The latest Wikileaks data dump has revealed how CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger emailed Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta telling him he was a “star” and describing how she had been in “gop hell.”

In a short email to Podesta entitled “U r a tv star!”, Borger wrote, “I have been in gop hell. Will reach out soon! U good?”

Podesta simply replied to the email “yup,” before Borger went on to praise Hillary Clinton’s debate performance, adding that “she had a really good debate tonite.”

Borger’s responsibility as a CNN political analyst is not to operate as a Clinton surrogate, but to provide balanced opinion and analysis of political developments.

The email was sent February 12th 2016, with Borger having appeared the evening before as part of CNN’s post debate panel between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders the night before.

The email only serves as further evidence of collusion between CNN and the Clinton campaign. This week CNN was forced to sever ties with DNC Chair Donna Brazile after it emerged she had fed questions to Hillary Clinton before one of her debates with challenger Bernie Sanders.

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about [Brazile’s] interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” the network said in a statement on Monday.

Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside

October 31st, 2016

John Kass
Contact Reporter
ctober 29, 2016 5:12 pm

Has America become so numb by the decades of lies and cynicism oozing from Clinton Inc. that it could elect Hillary Clinton as president, even after Friday’s FBIannouncement that it had reopened an investigation of her emails while secretary of state?

We’ll find out soon enough.

It’s obvious the American political system is breaking down. It’s been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they’re properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.

FBI director James Comey‘s announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious.

This can’t be about pervert Anthony Weiner and his reported desire for a teenage girl. But it can be about the laptop of Weiner’s wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and emails between her and Hillary. It comes after the FBI investigation in which Comey concluded Clinton had lied and been “reckless” with national secrets, but said he could not recommend prosecution.

So what should the Democrats do now?

If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

Since Oct. 7, WikiLeaks has released 35,000 emails hacked from Clinton campaign boss John Podesta. Now WikiLeaks, no longer a neutral player but an active anti-Clinton agency, plans to release another 15,000 emails.

What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands.

The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media — fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton’s political action committee — should begin demanding it.

Justice officials warned FBI about Comey’s decision to update Congress

But what will Hillary do?

She’ll stick and ride this out and turn her anger toward Comey. For Hillary and Bill Clinton, it has always been about power, about the Clinton Restoration and protecting fortunes already made by selling nothing but political influence.

She’ll remind the nation that she’s a woman and that Donald Trump said terrible things about women. If there is another notorious Trump video to be leaked, the Clintons should probably leak it now. Then her allies in media can talk about misogyny and sexual politics and the headlines can be all about Trump as the boor he is and Hillary as champion of female victims, which she has never been.

Remember that Bill Clinton leveraged the “Year of the Woman.” Then he preyed on women in the White House and Hillary protected him. But the political left — most particularly the women of the left — defended him because he promised to protect abortion rights and their other agendas.

If you take a step back from tribal politics, you’ll see that Mrs. Clinton has clearly disqualified herself from ever coming near classified information again. If she were a young person straight out of grad school hoping to land a government job, Hillary Clinton would be laughed out of Washington with her record. She’d never be hired.

As secretary of state she kept classified documents on the home-brew server in her basement, which is against the law. She lied about it to the American people. She couldn’t remember details dozens of times when questioned by the FBI. Her aides destroyed evidence by BleachBit and hammers. Her husband, Bill, met secretly on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch for about a half-hour, and all they said they talked about was golf and the grandkids.

FBI’s Comey acted out of ‘obligation’ to lawmakers, fear of leak to media

And there was no prosecution of Hillary.

That isn’t merely wrong and unethical. It is poisonous.

And during this presidential campaign, Americans were confronted with a two-tiered system of federal justice: one for standards for the Clintons and one for the peasants.

I’ve always figured that, as secretary of state, Clinton kept her home-brew email server — from which foreign intelligence agencies could hack top secret information — so she could shield the influence peddling that helped make the Clintons several fortunes.

The Clintons weren’t skilled merchants. They weren’t traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars.

All they had to sell, really, was influence. And they used our federal government to leverage it.

If a presidential election is as much about the people as it is about the candidates, then we’ll learn plenty about ourselves in the coming days, won’t we?

Listen to the Chicago Way podcast with John Kass and Jeff Carlin. Guests are Tribune cartoonist Scott Stantis and former White House Chief of Staff William


Copyright © 2016, Chicago Tribune

Rule of Law: Why this election is a MUST WIN

October 7th, 2016

OCTOBER 7, 2016 31 Comments

By Aimee Pontier, Editor

The current presidential election is the most important one in decades, and it has little to do with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

It’s about the rule of law. And if Clinton wins, liberals will forever change the law of the land.

The Supreme Court, which began its 2016 term on Monday, has had a conservative majority since Richard Nixon landed in the Oval Office in 1968. During Nixon’s presidency, he appointed four conservative justices. Since that election, there has been no other president that has had the opportunity to completely alter the American legal landscape for decades.

Until now.

The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February left the Supreme Court at a standstill with eight justices; four conservatives and four liberals. The Court is waiting to hear multiple cases where constitutional rights are in question.

Whomever is nominated to break the current split will be a huge decision maker for years to come. But it doesn’t end there.

While Justice Scalia’s seat is currently the only one open, that will likely change in the very near future. There are three sitting justices that are 78 or older, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 83; Justice Anthony Kennedy, 80; and Justice Stephen Breyer, 78. This makes the chance of Supreme Court retirements in the next four years highly likely, at which point the sitting president would nominate replacements.

Nearly 50 years of unbroken conservative control of the Supreme Court is what is at stake in November. Should the Supreme Court become a liberal majority, things will never be the same.

Monumental cases are making their way to the high court for decisions that could either defend our constitution, or spit on it. It all depends on who is wearing the robe – conservative, or liberal — when the cases arrive.

Voting Rights

The court will hear an appeal during its 2016 term of a lower court’s ruling that the Texas law requiring photo identification to vote is discriminatory toward minorities and the poor. The court could also hear appeals in similar cases from North Carolina and Wisconsin. A vote that, with liberal majority, will definitely side with the lower court’s ruling, and an ID will not be required to vote, meaning voter fraud will be easier than ever to get away with.

Religious Freedom

The court has yet to schedule its hearing of the noteworthy religious case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, but it is on the docket for the current term. The church is appealing a decision which stated, due to separation of church and state, the government should not provide the church a grant to make playgrounds safer by using recycled tires. The church argues that the grant is for a completely secular purpose that would help the entire community, but the Missouri constitution forbids public money used, “in aid of any church.”

Public Restrooms

The Supreme Court is still deciding if it will hear an appeal to a lower court ruling in Virginia that says the school district must allow transgender use of the bathroom that matches the individual’s gender identity. If the court agrees to hear the appeal, the decision’s only hope of being overturned is a conservative majority court.


In Lynch v. Dimaya, the court will decide whether the federal law that requires deportation of non-citizens convicted of felonies involving “substantial risk” of violence is unconstitutionally vague. It’s a case that could allow convicted felons who aren’t U.S. citizens to remain in our country, and continue to disobey our laws.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a request from President Obama to appeal a 4-4 ruling in United States v. Texas,which rejected a proposal which would have shielded 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. The case could still return to the court in a later term.

Following the original ruling, Obama whined that the ruling would’ve been in his favor had Congress approved Merrick Garland for the court – only further affirming the importance of the upcoming justice pick.

A look at future cases to be heard highlights the importance of each member of the court. With one seat currently vacant and the high possibility of upcoming retirements, our next president could have an incredible amount of power in nominating justices. With either candidate, it’s safe to assume the court will take on a majority that falls in line with that nominee’s party.

The majority of the Supreme Court will last for generations, influencing our nation’s laws more than any president can influence in a single term.

This election is bigger than the two candidates, it’s about the entire landscape of lawmaking in this country for years to come.

— Aimee Pontier is the Editor of The Horn News

Marines Poised to Ditch Iconic ‘The Few, The Proud’ Slogan

September 28th, 2016

No doubt at the behest of LBGTQ groups who feel that the slogan is too “exclusionary”…

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 05:07 PM
By: Cathy Burke

The Marine Corps may reportedly ditch its catchy, nearly 40-year-old tagline – “The Few, The Proud” – in a new ad campaign to debut next year.

The slogan “does a great job distinguishing ourselves from the other branches and making us prestigious to recruits, but it doesn’t say anything about what we do or why we exist,” Marine Corp recruiting spokesman Lt. Col. John Caldwell tells Marine Corps Times.

“We believe the new campaign products require a unique tagline to achieve the effort’s objectives.”

Caldwell said the new slogan’s focus will be on “everything that we do as a fight — a fight that we intend to win,” Marine Corps Times reports.

“The Few, The Proud” has has been in use since 1977; others used during the same time period include “If Everybody Could Get In The Marines, It Wouldn’t Be The Marines” and “We’re Looking for a Few Good Men,” according to Marine Corps Times.


What do Lester Holt, James Comey and Loretta Lynch Have in Common?

September 28th, 2016

Answer? They are all in the tank for Clinton….

NBC News’ Lester Holt had his “Candy Crowley” moment at the first debate of the 2016 presidential election on Monday night, bowing to pressure from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the liberal media by “fact-checking” Republican nominee Donald Trump on the question of his support for the Iraq War.

Holt lived up to the expectations of his peers. But he lived down to the worst expectations of conservatives, who routinely see Republican candidates treated unfairly by debate moderators.

Again and again, Holt asked Trump tough questions that were straight from the Clinton campaign’s talking points, and which were obvious set-ups for Clinton to attack (and for fact-checkers to pounce on whatever Trump asserted in his own defense).

Here are the five worst examples.

Tax returns. Holt never asked Clinton about her e-mail scandal, about Benghazi, or about the Clinton Foundation and its dubious dealings. But he did ask Trump about his tax returns, arguing — not asking — that there might be questionable information in them that the American public deserved to hear.

Birther conspiracy theory. Holt never asked Clinton about her past record of racist statements, including her “super-predator” remarks as First Lady, or her explicit appeal to “white Americans” in her 2008 primary campaign against Obama. Yet he asked Trump about the Birther conspiracy theory and cast it as racist.

Stop-and-frisk. After an exchange between the candidates over the policy of “stop-and-frisk,” Holt interjected to bolster Clinton’s point by stating, erroneously, that stop-and-frisk had ended in New York because it had been declared unconstitutional by a court. Trump countered, correctly, that the new mayor had canceled the policy before the litigation was over.

“A presidential look.” Towards the end of the debate, Holt asked Trump about what he meant by saying Hillary Clinton did not have “a presidential look.” He did so after noting that Clinton had become “the first woman” to be nominated for president by a major political party, thus setting Trump up as a sexist. As Trump answered, Holt interrupted him, then gave Clinton a chance to respond with her talking points about Trump’s past comments on women.

Iraq War. The question of whether Trump supported the Iraq War or not has been widely debated. What is beyond doubt is that Hillary Clinton voted for it. Holt only represented one side of the debate about Trump, and never asked Clinton about her own vote.

In addition, the audience repeatedly interjected — almost always in Clinton’s favor — and Holt did not stop them, though it was against the rules. He only stopped the audience when there were cheers for Trump calling for Clinton’s emails.

Bow again, Lester Holt. You did your job.

Immigration boss who barred feds from terror suspect up for award, but agency won’t say why

June 24th, 2016

By Malia Zimmerman
Published June 22, 2016
A U.S. immigration official blamed in a federal report for barring law enforcement agents from a suspect in the San Bernardino terror attack has been nominated for a prestigious agency award – but her bosses in Washington refuse to say what she did to earn consideration.

Irene Martin heads the San Bernardino U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, where last December, she allegedly blocked five armed Department of Homeland Security agents from the man authorities say supplied the firepower in the deadly attack a day earlier. Although an Inspector General’s report found she acted improperly, and then lied to investigators, has learned she has been nominated for the Secretary’s Award for Valor.

“To give Irene Martin an award for valor is insulting to all the prior awardees – the agents and officers who truly displayed valor and risked their lives to save someone else,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based research institute.

Department of Homeland Security officials declined to say what Martin did to merit consideration for the award, which is described as “the highest departmental recognition for extraordinary acts of valor by an employee or group, occurring while on or off duty” and is reserved for “those who have demonstrated extraordinary courage in a highly dangerous, life-threatening situation or emergency under extreme stress and involving a specific act of valor, such as saving another person’s life or property.”

Past valor award recipients include government employees who have saved people from burning cars, sinking ships and weapon- wielding assailants. was told the information could only be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, which has been lodged.

Martin was blamed for touching off a turf war that came to light when whistle blowers told Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., about the tense, Dec. 3, 2015 incident. It came a day after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook killed 14 and wounded 22 in the terror attack. Authorities believe Enrique Marquez, who had an appointment with Martin’s staff when the authorities showed up, gave them the guns used in the attack.

The potential award for Martin was announced on a conference call from high-ranking USCIS officials in Washington during a staff meeting held at the San Bernardino office where Martin also was present, sources told The USCIS and the agents who had been sent to detain Marquez are part of DHS.

The nomination from Martin’s superiors was stunning to staff members because it was announced just days after a June 1 DHS Inspector General’s report found Martin improperly hindered the work of five armed agents on site just 24 hours after the attack.

Johnson held two Senate hearings about the incident in May and requested that the Inspector General’s investigation.

The report noted DHS agents were sent to the USCIS building to arrest Marquez, who authorities were frantically trying to track down the day after the terror attack at an office Christmas party. Marquez, it turned out, had not shown up for his scheduled appointment at the USCIS building, but Martin kept agents waiting 30 minutes before meeting with them, and another hour before she turned over the USCIS file on Marquez.

Marquez was eventually arrested and is being held on charges related to supplying the guns as well as marriage fraud.

Martin also lied to the Inspector General’s investigators, according to the June 6 report, about her role in what has been characterized as a turf battle. Lying to federal investigators is a felony and can result in dismissal and criminal charges.

“We concluded that the USCIS Field Office Director at the San Bernardino office improperly delayed … agents from conducting a lawful and routine law enforcement action,” the report stated. “We have also concluded that the Field Office Director was not candid with OIG investigators during her interview.”

Arlen Morales, spokesman for the DHS Inspector General, would not confirm whether his agency had made a potential criminal referral involving Martin’s testimony to the US Department of Justice, saying the Inspector General does not discuss any ongoing work.

Vaughan suspects the award could be a further politicization of the Dec. 3 incident, which left DHS law enforcement officials furious and at a disadvantage as they tried to close in on any accomplices to the Dec. 2 terror attack.

“Irene Martin’s nomination for this valor award is scandalous,” said Vaughan.

Reality… A Fleeting Fundamental

June 23rd, 2016

By Burt Prelutsky

I assumed I would have to wait until Jimmy Carter, 91, died before the outpouring of love and respect over the passing of a public figure would make me quite this nauseous, but, then, I hadn’t counted on Muhammad Ali passing at the age of 74.

Ali was a very good boxer. Some have insisted he was the best, while others have claimed Joe Louis or Sugar Ray Robinson were better. For the record, let me confess that in my opinion, being a boxing champion ranks near the bottom of the list when it comes to human achievements. Even serving in Congress is one step up.

It amazes me that a man who refused to serve in the military could be regarded by so many as courageous. This is a guy who explained he wouldn’t serve because “No Viet Cong ever called me a nigger.” Well, no Viet Cong ever paid his way to the Olympics so he could win a gold medal, either.

Furthermore, as excuses for not serving his country go, not having been called a name by the enemy is pretty pathetic. At least so far as I’m aware, not a single Polish American, Italian American, or Jewish American ever bugged out of WWII simply because no German had ever called him a wop, a Polack or a kike.

As sportsmen went, he was the Trump of his generation. He referred to his opponents as “ugly,” “a bum,” “too dumb to be champion.” He referred to himself as “The Greatest,” but called Sonny Liston “a big ugly bear who even smells like a bear.” His singular achievement was that he was the first person to introduce trash talk to professional sports.

In his own personal life, he wasn’t much better. He was married four times and had seven children. He had another two with women he didn’t bother marrying.

Even after Ali was tested and found to possess an IQ of 78, (below 70 is deemed feeble-minded), he boasted “I said I was the Greatest, not the Smartest.” (Cute, but questionable as valid bragging material for gaining respect for “his” race?)

Although he was born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., in honor of his father, whose own grandfather had been a slave, at the age of 23, Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali and converted to Islam. One might regard that as peculiar, seeing as how it was Arabs who had been the major slave traders in Africa, the very folks who had put his ancestors in chains. But, then, I suppose irony is lost on people with 78 IQs. (The slave trade conducted by Arabs and Muslims continues even today in Africa and the Middle East.)

Not too surprisingly, Barack Obama, upon learning of the ex-boxer’s death, said, “Muhammad Ali fought for all of us,” going on to compare him to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Whether it comes to thieves or vile narcissists, it often does take one to know one.

In seven hours of testimony during a deposition about Hillary Clinton’s private email server, Cheryl Mills, Mrs. Clinton’s counsel and chief of staff, replied “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” 189 times. That works out to 27 times-an-hour.

Now I’m not one to call someone I’ve never even met a big fat liar, but Ms. Mills is only 51-years-old. So she is either a bigger fibber than Pinocchio and Brian Williams put together or she is clearly in the early stages of Alzheimer’s and should seek help immediately before she manages to forget her own name and where she parked her car.

If race relations in America are worse than they were in 2008, I would venture it’s because, instead of seeing the likes of Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Condoleezza Rice and Jason Riley, being front and center, we’ve had an endless parade of arrogant black racists, including, but not limited to, the Obamas, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Prof. Henry Gates, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeremiah Wright, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Marilyn Mosby and Obama’s go-to guy on racial matters, Al Sharpton. And when these vermin haven’t been telling lies about the unnecessary deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi or trashing cops or shredding the Constitution, they’ve been hailing thugs like Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and Trayvon Martin, as paragons of virtue and martyrs ‘in the cause of civil rights’.

I understand why, if the charges against Trump University are true, there would be a class action lawsuit. But keep in mind, the course at most cost $35,000. My question is why there aren’t similar lawsuits against most of the other colleges and universities in America?

In sums often running as high as several hundred thousand dollars, these institutions are ripping off students and their parents, offering courses and even majors in such obvious scams as Black Studies, Hispanic Studies, Lesbian Studies; and, for the more scholarly element, the history of comic books and the comparative study of TV sitcoms in the various decades.

Even at the very pricey Yale, the students are petitioning to be freed of the requirement to read the likes of Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer and Swift, because they’re old, dead and white, although there’s nothing to prevent them from devoting their time to reading the drivel by the likes of Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison and James Baldwin. But it’s not the authors or the subject matter that really concerns them. It’s reading, itself, that puts them off their feed. But that’s what comes of raising a generation that writes with its thumbs, limits its communications to 140 characters and are convinced that “for” is spelled “4.”

At least the graduates of Trump U were presumably prepared to go out and make a living buying and selling something useful, like real estate.

Although a few people had already let me know how offended they were by the amount of attention that was paid to the death of a gorilla and how little was paid to the crash death of Blue Angel pilot, Marine Capt. Jeff Kuss, I have decided that I would focus on the difference between the public send-off that Muhammad Ali, a draft-dodging braggart, received and the one given Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer (ret.), who recently died in Arizona, at the age of 85.

Schaefer had been the military attaché at the U.S. embassy in Tehran when Islamists seized the compound on Nov. 4, 1979, and 66 people were taken hostage, all because Jimmy Carter had betrayed the Shah of Iran, ushering in the Ayatollah Khomeini and four decades of world-wide Islamic terrorism. From the beginning, Col. Schaefer was singled out for special attention. As the ranking military officer in the embassy, he was accused of running “a nest of spies” and treated or, rather, mistreated, accordingly.

He was paraded blindfolded in front of TV cameras and threatened constantly with immediate execution. He would eventually spend 150 days in solitary confinement in a freezing cell, with damp floors and only a thin blanket for warmth.

He would later report that he used a pin to punch a code into his Bible on a daily basis to help him endure the ordeal. “They were breaking me down both physically and mentally. I could feel myself losing it.”

Release came after 444 days of captivity. It was no coincidence that the hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981. It was the very day that several thousand miles away Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.

On the flight home, by way of a symbolic salute, the co-pilot gave up his seat to Col. Schaefer just as the plane entered U.S. airspace. After retiring from the Air Force, Schaefer spent many years speaking to students and adults on the subject of facing and overcoming adversity, a subject he knew far better than any decent American ever should.

In 1998, Schaefer said that the United States should re-establish relations with Iran for strategic reasons. But in 2013, he denounced the Iran nuclear deal, calling it “foolish.” I suspect that “foolish” was the word he used for public consumption. In private, I’m sure there were several other words he used in describing it and the men, Obama and Kerry, who brokered it. He said he didn’t know any Iranian leader who could be trusted. I suspect he said much the same about the American leaders at the time.

Col. Schaefer is survived by his wife of 63 years, Anita; two sons; six grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. Not to mention a grateful nation.

There will be a small service at Arlington National Cemetery in the Fall.

Obama, are you Shiite-ing me??

June 20th, 2016


Charles Hurt
Posted with permission from The Washington Times

Well, thank goodness we have President Obama on the case. He will get to the bottom of it and finally put a stop to all this murder, madness and mayhem.”And there also at this stage is no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot,” a dazed Mr. Obama said haltingly as he – once again – downplayed this crazy notion that America and Western Civilization is under relentless attack from barbaric animals slaughtering humans in the name of Islam.

No “direct evidence” that Islamic jihadi Omar Mateen’s rampage in Orlando was “part of a larger plot?”

Are you Shiite-ing me???

In that sense, the commander in chief went on, “it appears to be similar to what we saw in San Bernardino – but we don’t know yet.”

Oh, phew! For a moment there I thought we were in serious trouble. I thought the savage execution of 50 revelers in Orlando might be part of a larger plot.

I mean, if that were the case and this were part of a “larger plot,” then it might kind of be the president’s fault that this stuff keeps happening over and over again. It might mean all these killings of innocent civilians from Boston to San Bernardino are, say, a national security issue. Maybe?

Part of a “larger plot” might also raise some seriously awkward questions about who exactly is doing the killing and whom exactly they are targeting and – oh, I don’t know – what exactly their motivations are.

“We don’t yet know the motivations,” Mr. Obama informed reporters gathered in the Oval Office.

Seriously? The guy is still stumped on this one?

What’s even more amazing is that the assembled reporters didn’t explode into laughter when the president said this. Or, maybe one of them could speak up and offer to pull the president aside to explain the motivation here.

The biggest reason, of course, Mr. Obama remains the only person left on the planet who doesn’t know Omar Mateen’s motivations and refuses to accept the existence of a “larger plot” against America and civilization is that if he were to accept these plainly obvious truths, then he would actually have to do something about it.

And that would be so hard.

The single worst thing he and his fellow Democrats could be forced to do today would be to take a very serious look at their insane immigration policy where anyone – literally even if you are just out of the Rio Grande, dripping wet – is welcomed with open arms.

And if you come from a country that is known as a hotbed of violent jihad, well that’s just fine, too. And then there are the Syrian refugees – Hat Tip: Obama foreign policy – where thousands are streaming in from and even government officials admit they are not able to perform complete background checks to see if they have ties to terrorist organization.

This is why Mr. Obama really doesn’t want to see the “larger plot” or acknowledge how obvious the “motivations” are. He would rather use events like this to score partisan political points and make nonsensical complaints about gun ownership in America.

“We are also going to have to think about the risks we are willing to take by being so lax in how we make very powerful firearms available to the people in this country,” Mr. Obama said. “And this is something that obviously I’ve talked about for a very long time.”

Um, okay. How about this, Mr. President: You go ahead and disarm every last terrorist now lurking in this country, plotting their next jihadi massacre and then we can talk about that.

But until you do that and start taking your job seriously, we are going to keep buying guns and stockpiling tons of ammunition so we can protect ourselves, our families and neighbors in this red hot war on America and civilization.