Thursday, April 27, 2017

Michael Smith: Separate and Equal (but Special)

Michael Smith wrote a very interesting piece on Facebook a few days ago.  I thought it was worthy of being shared here.  Enjoy!

The Supreme Court ended the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” when it handed down the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, overturning the decision on Plessey v. Ferguson on May 18, 1896 that affirmed Louisiana state law mandating “equal but separate”. Homer Adolph Plessy bought a ticket on the East Louisiana Railroad, from New Orleans to Covington, La. Mr. Plessy , seven-eighths white and one-eighth Negro, took a seat in the coach designated for whites on the segregated train. When challenged, he refused to move, he was taken off and jailed.
Reflecting the social and legal environment of the times, the Plessy decision was not even close - the decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. This decision established legal segregation by race as the law of the land and it stood for 58 years until society changed and recognized that separate but equal is anything but equal.
Brown v. Board of Education has now been law for 5 years longer than was Plessy (63 years vs. 58). Proving that certain segments of mankind never learn anything from history, the SJW’s (social justice warriors) of contemporary times seek to return to the days of Plessy (with a twist) by working with government to be separate and equal (but special). Blacks are calling for “black only” instruction in college and black only police and government in majority black areas. Muslims are demanding Muslim only public accommodations – the same is true with the LGBT community. Feminists want to be free of the “heteronormative patriarchy” by removing men from their roles in society. The entire “safe space” idea is not just to provide protection for thin-skinned progressive adult children and academics (but I repeat myself) but to exclude people who hold opposing ideas and prevent them from being heard. These folks say they want to be treated as equal but demand to be separated from others and in doing so, they also expect special protection and treatment.
Affirmative action programs were created to “cure” the discrimination created by the “separate but equal” doctrine. These programs created the first classes of people who were separate and equal (but special). The idea was to carve out special privileges for blacks that would eventually help a class of citizens overcome historical inequality. Looking at black America today, it is obviously possible to make the case that black individuals have benefited – but as a socio-economic class, affirmative action can hardly be considered a success - and yet it continues apace.
In 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), SCOTUS upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School by defining the very quota system found unconstitutional in 1978’s Regents of the University of California v. Bakke as “not a quota system” (a lot like how John Roberts redefined Obamacare’s tax as not a tax and a tax at the same time in order to find Obamacare constitutional). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a “compelling interest in promoting class diversity.” Never mind that the Constitution says nothing about “diversity” and everything about equality, the important aspect is that Grutter v. Bollinger affirmed the same “separate but equal” doctrine as did Plessy v. Ferguson (with the special twist of approving reverse discrimination).
Progressivism is riddled with self-contradictory ideas and affirmative action is no exception – it seeks to create equality by creating inequality (i.e. lowering standards, mandating quotas, grading on the curve, etc.), proving that Brown v. Board of Education was demonstrably correct – separate is not equal, especially when discrimination is thought to be cured by more discrimination against an out of favor class. Progressivism is built on building protected classes and “curing” their ills by disadvantaging another class. Proving that progressives are the least self-aware class on the face of the American political landscape, this is the basis for the Plessy decision in 1896 making the modern SJW’s little better than the post-Civil War segregationists.
Separate but equal is not equal. Equal but special is not the same as being equal. Separate but equal was wrong in 1896 and progressivism’s doctrine of separate and equal (but special) is just as wrong today.
Mr. Smith makes some very interesting and accurate points, in my opinion.  I was always of the opinion that there was indeed a time when affirmative action programs were necessary to balance out the systemic racism that would not allow people of color to even have a chance to get a foot in the door of some colleges or businesses.  I also feel that time is past and affirmative action is no longer necessary.

Nowadays, affirmative action, in my opinion is just as Michael Smith intimated, a system of reverse racism.  Affirmative action tells our brothers and sisters of color that they cannot make it on their own merits today.  They must be propped up with quotas in order to be allowed entrance to universities and careers.  Today, such is NOT the case and is frankly demeaning to myriads of well qualified folks.  It is interesting when a program that was enacted to combat racism has outlasted its usefulness and has thereby become racist in itself.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Matt Walsh: I Didn't Fall in Love with My Wife


"It’s no surprise that we are so bad at marriage in this culture.

We’re bad at it because we don’t understand it, and we don’t understand it because we don’t understand love. You can’t forge a lasting marriage if all you know about love is what you learned from an Ed Sheeran song. It’s like trying to build a car when you think engines run on fairy dust. And that’s essentially how many of us approach marriage. We believe it’s fueled by some intense and mystical emotional force — a force we inaccurately call 'love' — and as soon as we run out of this mysterious cosmic gasoline all we can do is send it to the scrap yard and find a new model."


Friday, April 14, 2017

Good Friday: He Makes All Things New Again

As we enter into Good Friday and the most solemn day of the year for most Christians, I wanted to share this beautiful and haunting music video.  It is sung by two of my favorite artists, Brad Paisley and Sara Evans, and they do a masterful job.  The video itself contains excerpts mainly from the Passion of the Christ film.  Please be warned that the film and the clip can be difficult to watch in parts for many folks due to the realistic and graphic portrayal of the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior.

Nevertheless, as Blessed Pope John Paul II was reported as having said upon seeing a private screening of the film upon its release, "It is as it was."



My people, what have I done to you?  Or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.  What more should I have done, and did not do?  I led you out of the land of Egypt, and you prepared a cross for me.  I opened the Red Sea before you, and you opened my side with a lance.  I gave you a royal scepter, and you have given me a crown of thorns.  With great power I lifted you up, and you hung me upon a cross.  My people, what have I done to you, or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.    (~ From the Reproaches of Good Friday)

Blessed be God forever!  Amen!

Sunday, April 2, 2017

The Objective Media Myth

I am always amused by many of my progressive friends who insist that the media is not liberally biased, or at worst are products of corporate and not progressive bias.  The fact that so many of these well-meaning people don't even recognize the intrinsic liberal bias in the mainstream media based on what they report, how they report it, and what they choose NOT to report is quite telling.  

I saw a recent article that is further damning to the notion that the mainstream media is objective.  A few points of interest in particular are the following:

·        96 percent of the donations given by journalists in the 2016 presidential election as of August were to Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

·        7 percent of journalists identify as Republican, while 28 percent identify as Democrat, according to an Indiana University School of Journalism study conducted in 2013.

·        “Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump,” noted FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver.

Just some more evidence of the "objectivity" of our mainstream media -- but then us true conservatives already knew these truths.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Daniel Greenfield: The Civil War is Here

A reader and friend of Saving Common Sense directed me to this excellent article on FrontPage Mag that was written by Daniel Greenfield yesterday.  The article is entitled, "THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE: The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule." 

As I told my friend, this is perhaps one of the best articles I have read in awhile.  I was contemplating some of the same ideas espoused in the article and was working on a very rough draft over the last few weeks when time permitted, but Mr. Greenfield did such a masterful job of articulating the issues at hand, that it seemed pointless for me to reinvent the wheel.  With that said, I strongly encourage everyone to click on the link and read the entire article at Front Page Mag.

Below are a few excerpts that particularly caught my attention from Mr. Greenfield's article:

"The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey...
...We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.
But we cannot have both.
Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.
That is what we have now.
The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise...
...The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials...
...Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders..."
It is ironic that many otherwise well-meaning people on the Left accuse the Right of being authoritarian and insisting that "love trumps hate".  It is even more ironic that they do so by means of violent protests and judicial coercion from activist judges.  I never expected "love" to require rocks, Molotov cocktails, and literal beat downs of dissenting opinion speakers.  It is scary to contemplate, but a civil war could very well be the exact direction in which we are heading.

H/T: Majormajor

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Progressive Home Defense

A few days ago a "progressive" friend asked me what I thought he might need in order to defend his home and family from home invasion.

I suggested a 9mm, a couple of clips, and a box of shells.

A few days later he sent me this picture below and asked me how to make it all work.

Of course, he voted for Obama twice and Hillary last November.



"...it will be necessary for the men of peace to have guns, as long as men of violence do.  We can't put all the force in the hands of evil."  ~ Louis L'Amour


Monday, March 6, 2017

Painfully Remembering Obama 3/6/2017

Obama books himself on the Jimmy Fallon Show.

Wondering why some of our progressive friends fail to see the arrogance and buffoonery of our former president.


Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Ash Wednesday and the "Glitter Ash" Initiative

Today is Ash Wednesday, thus marking the first day of Lent for many Christians throughout the world.  Lent is a sacred time for orthodox Christianity and marks the 40 days between Ash Wednesday to Easter, with Sundays (the Lord’s Day) not to be counted amongst the forty.  These forty days of Lent are representative of the forty days our Lord Christ spent in the desert after He was baptized by John the Baptist.  He wandered the desert in fasting and prayer prior to the beginning of His earthly ministry. 

The Catholic Church teaches that Lent is a time of repentance.  It is a turning away from earthly desires and temptations and a turning of our focus toward God through fasting, prayer, and alms giving.  On this day faithful Catholics and other orthodox Christians will attend Mass or church services to prepare for their Lenten journey towards the cross and then resurrection of our Lord on Easter. 

Ash Wednesday is so named because of the practice of the priest reminding each Christian as they come forward in Mass to receive the sign of the cross marked on their foreheads in ash to “Remember you are dust, and unto dust you shall return.”  These ashes are made by the burning of the palm leaves used in the Palm Sunday services of the previous year.  It is a very sacred time where Christians repent for their sins and focus on trying to live by God’s will.

Sadly there are some Christian churches that have taken this sacred day as an opportunity to advance an earthly agenda.  In the Chicago area there are several churches including Unity Lutheran Church in Edgewater, Holy Covenant Metropolitan Community Church in Brookfield, and Berry United Methodist Church in Lincoln Square, that have decided to partake in the “Glitter Ash Wednesday” initiative.

This initiative was created by the New York faith based organization “Parity”.   Parity focuses on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community.  Their goal is to combine the message of solidarity and support with the traditional symbol of lent – repentance.  These three churches will offer the option of “glitter ash” in which purple glitter is mixed with traditional ashes to be placed on each Christian’s forehead in the sign of the cross. 

“I think it’s really important for the church to respond to the intolerance and culture of fear that is being created especially toward LGBTQ people”, stated April Gutierrez who is the pastor of Berry United Methodist Church.  “We want to make sure the Christian message is one of love and inclusivity.”

Love and inclusivity are noble and Godly ideals.  Indeed God Himself is love.  And He loves all of his children regardless of similarities or differences.  However, His grace is bestowed only on those that acknowledge Him as Lord and try to faithfully keep His commandments; especially His greatest commandments to love Him and to love your neighbor.

True agape Christ-like love is not some mushy romantic feeling that overcomes one when he thinks of another but rather is the true desiring of what is best for one’s beloved.  Supporting a loved one in continuing a harmful and sinful life is not truly love.  

Scripture tells us that we are all called to hate the sin but love the sinner.  Granted, there are many Christians that are great at acting out on the first part of that phrase and then ignore the second part.  Indeed, it is not our place as faithful Christians to condemn those who stray from the Lord or His path.  If we were to do so, we must necessarily condemn the whole world… including ourselves. 

That said, we are not to give in to temptation and sinfulness nor condone sinful behavior in others either.  God hates sin.  We are to discern, based on His teachings, what is right and what is wrong and to live our lives accordingly, while still loving our fellow human beings that fall into sin.

It would seem to me that these few churches, while perhaps having good intentions, are sorely misguided in showing their “solidarity” with sinfulness and failing to properly discern wrong and what is truly best for their beloved brothers and sisters.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the "salvific meaning of this mysterious event," in which Jesus is revealed as "the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation."


With that said, one has to ask, are these churches that offer glitter ashes being faithful to Christ’s example or to Adam’s?

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Painfully Remembering Obama 2/28/2017


President Obama bowing to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah


Wondering why some of our progressive friends fail to see the arrogance and buffoonery of former President Obama.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Washington's Denial of Religious Liberty and Christians that Sit in Silence

Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny


By MICHAEL BROWN

There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty today. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.

There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

Continue reading here.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

The Politics of Intolerance, Hate, and Anti-Semitism on College Campuses


There never was a nation called Palestine. It was a region -- and it was populated by Jews and Arabs alike. The entire cause of disavowing, boycotting, and the would-be destruction of Jewish Israel is patently dishonest. Most "Palestinians" are from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and so on: not the region called Palestine. Indeed, Yasser Arafat, the terrorist leader of the PLO and subsequent "Nobel Peace Prize" winner, was himself Egyptian. (The fact that Arafat was awarded the prize speaks to the lack of credibility of this once noble committee.) This charade is all bogus and stems from anti-Semitic hate towards Israel and Jews.

Sadly, the anti-Semitism in U.S. universities has often been created by the students within them from the Middle East who covet Israel’s land and prosperity.  And then there are many professors who tow the seemingly progressive line and promulgate the agenda of decrying the "racism, apartheid practices, and oppression of the Zionists" which has sickened the minds of young students who trust such authority figures blindly. The students don't bother to do the research to find out the history and the truth of what is really going on in Israel. Sadly, even a loved one of mine has succumbed to these lies and refuses to even look at the contrary and inarguable EVIDENCE of the truth.

When the Palestinian government allies itself with Hamas and Hezbollah, whose very charters call for the destruction of Jewish Israel and denies its right to even exist, who really are the hateful ones? Indeed, if Israel were to unilaterally disarm, they would be over-run and utterly destroyed immediately. They would be wiped off the face of the map, as the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, once stated was his goal. On the other hand, if the "Palestinian" people and surrounding hostile nations were to unilaterally disarm, there would finally be peace in the region.

Therein resides the difference.

Therein one finds who is truly hateful.



For more information on the struggle in Israel, please read my older post on the topic here.




H/T to Carrie for the video and much of the information comprising this post.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Trump's Temporary Immigration Ban

There has been a lot of hoopla made out of President Trump’s executive order on the temporary ban of immigrants from seven unstable or war-torn Middle Eastern nations lately.  Where one comes down on the issue is probably more indicative of one’s own political predilections than it is of the actual executive order itself.

Trump’s executive order specifically states that a temporary ban on immigration from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya will be enacted in order to ensure the safety of American citizens from potential terrorists that could infiltrate and pose as refugees in order to gain entrance into our nation for nefarious reasons.

Now I understand and indeed appreciate the good-hearted people that want to allow immigrants that are fleeing these war-embattled, terrorist hellholes.  If we could ensure their good intentions, then I would be inclined to grant them refugee status and welcome them in too.  That said, our government has the responsibility to strike the proper balance between national security and compassion for its citizens and those who would be its citizens.

The reason these particular seven countries are specifically listed in the executive order is because of the inability for us to properly vet these would-be immigrants due to lack of documentation that verifies that these people truly are refugees and not ISIS fighters simply trying to gain entrance to America.  The foreign governments from which these folks are fleeing either do not have the ability or do not wish to provide documentation to corroborate these peoples’ stories.  Trump, as promised in the presidential campaign, has taken the first step to protect Americans from a potential national security risk by not admitting these refugees without proper vetting.  (Can you imagine the outcry, particularly from the Left, if unchecked immigration allowed a terrorist into the country who did manage to kill Americans under Trump's watch?)

“But this executive order is unconstitutional,” and “It is un-American to ban people simply because they are Muslim,” many well-meaning Americans object.  Well, I would respectfully argue that there is nothing unconstitutional, outrageous, or immoral about suspending immigration from countries raging in war and terrorism or specifically touting a hatred for American ideals.  Further, this is NOT a Muslim ban as the other 43 predominately Muslim nations in the world have not had their immigration status affected by this executive order.  Indeed, the European Union and even some Middle Eastern nations such as Kuwait have similar restrictions for many of these exact same unstable hot spots in the world.

Further, I find it interesting how many of these same people decrying Trump’s order watched in silence as President Obama in his waning days in office signed an executive order abolishing the refugee status of Cubans fleeing that repressive regime with the decades-held feet wet/feet dry policy. Previously Cubans that risked their lives fleeing to American shores were granted political asylum if they could successfully touch U.S. soil.  President Obama rescinded that long held immigration policy by executive order to nary a peep from the Left in this country.  That is hardly sympathetic to those immigrants that are fleeing tyranny and do not wish our country harm.  It stands in stark contrast to Trump’s executive order.

I applaud the purpose of President Trump’s executive order; however, in many ways he has been his own worst public relations enemy on the subject.  At times, he or his surrogates have insisted that this was not a ban, and then turned around and referred to it as a ban.  Whether this was simply sloppy language or intentional, they have sent a jumbled message that the hyper-critical left-wing press has been only too happy to run with in order to try and goad and undermine Trump and his supporters on this issue.  My biggest complaint though was that it doesn’t seem like the purpose and scope of the order was communicated well to those needing to understand and implement it properly.  Further, it should never have affected green card holders that were already vetted and here legally.

Lastly, regarding the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order, a president does indeed have the right to enforce existing law as the chief executive.  He has an obligation to protect America and its citizenry.  By issuing his order, he is not abridging or denying constitutional rights to would-be immigrants.  By definition, the United States Constitution guarantees it rights and protections to those who are CITIZENS of the United States.  It does not necessarily confer all of those same rights and protections to foreign nationals.

Two years ago, President Obama signed The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which contained the following:

An alien shall be ineligible for program participation who:
has been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, in Iraq or Syria, in a country designated as one that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or in any other country or area of concern designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and
regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, is a national of Iraq or Syria, a country designated as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or any other country or area of concern.

President Obama was right to do so then.  President Trump is right to do so now.  And that is regardless of my political predilections.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

The Women's Rights March that Degraded Women

To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.  
- Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

If Fulton Sheen was correct, and I fully believe he was, then our American civilization appears to those that do not know any better to have degraded to the point of being little more than a cesspool. The latest "women's rights" march in D.C. and throughout the country were nothing more than pro-abortion and pro-LGBT rallies.  They were a screed against the election of a president that they fear will take away their "right" to abort their children.  They were a symbol of our American culture's further slouching towards Gomorrah.

These women, in their pink "pussy hats" and carrying vulgar signs, degraded and lowered themselves and destroyed any sense of feminine dignity they had far more than the disgusting and vile words uttered by Trump years ago in a private conversation in which he has since apologized.  These sad women lowered the standard for what womanhood should be and actually hurt their cause to be heard and taken seriously with their disgusting and undignified actions.

Truly, if Susan B. Anthony had resorted to such filth, vulgarity, and lack of common decency in her fight for women's suffrage, I dare say that women might possibly not have the right to vote today.  So far down has our "pop culture" fallen in these "enlightened" modern times...

If the history of civilization is indeed written in the terms of the level of our women, I pray to God that He knows that the hundreds of thousands of women that did march, do not speak for the millions of good and decent women in our nation that we men should still aspire to be worthy thereof.

I pray for the conversion of the hearts of those women that acted so... unwomanly.


Caution: The following links are not family-friendly but are meant to illustrate the filth of which I speak.  I didn't have the stomach to actually post these pictures on my blog itself.

From The Federalist     

From MRC

Monday, January 23, 2017

Racism Redefined


Yep... enough said.

Chad Prather on Protesting the Protester

Perhaps I am simply being lazy and don't want to put in the effort to write a post about my frustration over the "peaceful" protesters, but I'd like to think that I am simply working smarter rather than harder when Chad Prather says it all so well for me.

Oh, and by the way, it would help me to take a lot of you protesters more seriously if you had even spent the effort to go and vote before your latest whine-fests.

Don't get me wrong.  I support and even champion many of the protesters out there.  What I have a serious problem with is the destruction and violence perpetrated by far too many of them.  You all should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.  Don't you know that when you incite or partake in violence or destruction, your message of protest becomes lost and your thuggery then becomes the main focus of the story?

Anyway... here's one of my new favorite guys of late to tell it like it is:


Wednesday, January 18, 2017

President Obama's Final Command to the Press


Ohhhh... I see...

So NOW that President Obama is leaving office, the press corp should remove its collective lips from his rear end and start doing their job of holding our government and its officials accountable to the United States Constitution and We The People.  Does this arrogant buffoon even realize the irony of his "directive" to his sycophantic minions in the media?

Hell yes they should not seek to be necessarily complimentary, and by all means, they should cast a critical eye towards those in power going forward.  They SHOULD have been doing so for the last eight years as well though.  Perhaps if the vaunted "fourth branch" of government had done their job properly over the better part of the last decade, the erosion of liberty and the neglect of our Constitution would not have been as wantonly subsumed as the normal course of business under President Obama's administration.

Amazing...

Monday, January 16, 2017

Moses Lambert on Chicago


"Chicago was a perfectly symbolic setting for Obama to give his last official speech; the city is a petri dish of the failed radical policies Obama attempted to impose on the country as a whole.

Of course, Chicago was an appropriate locale for the goodbye address. It’s a violent, one-party city that is collapsing under the weight of its own corruption.

Ruled by his White House chief of staff, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in 2016 there were 762 murders in Chicago, more than all the murders recorded that year in New York City and Los Angeles combined.

There were 4331 people shot in Chicago in 2016, up from 3550 in 2015, in a city where politicians blame inanimate objects, instead of criminals, for homicides and work relentlessly to deprive helpless residents of their Second Amendment rights.

Chicago is a so-called sanctuary city that goes out of its way to shield illegal aliens from immigration authorities and make their lives as comfortable as possible at the expense of everyone else. Obama protégé Emanuel is a strident, in-your-face supporter of the sanctuary city movement that gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans.

Chicago’s debt has junk-bond status and residents are fleeing the city in droves in search of greener pastures.

It is home to failing public schools made worse by the militant, rapacious Chicago Teachers Union and spectacularly unsuccessful public housing complexes.

They should really just rename Chicago 'Obama City.' "

Friday, January 13, 2017

Chad Prather: Goodbye Obama!

It was my intention to write a post about what President Obama accomplished in his eight years in office.  Sadly nearly all of the accomplishments were NOT for the better.  That said, I came across Chad Prather in this video and he did such a good job of summing up those "accomplishments" that I figured why should I reinvent the wheel.  So, this one is for you, Mr. President!  Good luck, godspeed, and good riddance!