Category Archives: Opinion

In our opinion: Border patrol death raises questions about border security

Posted on by

The issue of illegal immigration is not relevant in the context of Agent Ivie’s death. It is about the rule of law on this side of the border, where we have been and should remain vigilant against the import of narcotics from the Mexican cartels.

The death of a border patrol agent in what appears to be an ambush by drug smugglers is a tragic loss for his family and the community at large, and a sad reminder of the treacherous duty facing those assigned to keep the border secure.

Agent Nicholas J. Ivie, who grew up in Provo, leaves a widow and two young daughters. He is remembered as a man dedicated to his family, stalwart in his duty to the border patrol, a leader in his church, a man who had many friends, and at the age of 30, a full life ahead of him.

Read more at Desert News

Crucifixion in Cairo

Posted on by

On January 28, 2011 Barack Obama and administration officials made public statements endorsing the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. This public disclosure made it clear that he was working behind the scenes to ensure Mubarak’s ouster. They began portraying Mubarak as an evil monster, declaring him a “dictator”. Apparently this word “dictator” was thought by the administration to be so inflammatory that its use would outrage Americans to the point of supporting the Obama administration’s efforts to overthrow him.

Many people became alarmed and demanded that the administration explain its course of action if the Muslim Brotherhood were to take control of Egypt. The administration never denied that possibility, instead they promised us that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t so bad after all.

On February 10, 2011, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper clarified the administration’s position on the Brotherhood by telling the world, they weren’t your Daddy’s Muslim Brotherhood. They were no longer dangerous. They weren’t the Muslim Brotherhood of our collective memories. They had changed. They were peaceful now and non-violent. In his testimony, Clapper said:

The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaida as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, betterment of the political order in Egypt, etc.”

Read more at Freedom Torch

Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A

Posted on by

By Michael Graham
Boston Herald

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that  . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

Read more at the Boston Herald

Baconomics

Posted on by

FEUDALISM: You have bacon. The lord comes and takes the bacon. And your last pig. You get a potato.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have some bacon. Your neighbor does not. The government takes your bacon and gives it to the neighbor. You have to take a second job to bring home the bacon so you can continue to supply the non working neighbor with your bacon.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have some bacon. The government takes half of it to give to the neighbor with none. The bacon is then managed by a Bacon Czar with a large staff. The Bacon Czar is a vegan. With the ensuing paperwork, and the latent inability of the Bacon Czar to actually handle the bacon, the bacon goes bad and is thrown out.

FASCISM: You have a little bit of bacon. The government takes it, and offers to sell you the oink.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have bacon. Your neighbor works to help you get more bacon and you share in it, even though he eats twice as much as you and does half the amount of work.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have bacon. The government takes it and gives you a potato.

DICTATORSHIP: You have bacon. The government takes it and drafts you. You get MRE’s. They do not contain bacon.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have bacon. You vote with your neighbors as to how your bacon should be protected.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have some bacon. You elect someone to vote on how best to ensure you get more bacon.

Grieving for Freedom

Posted on by

By Van Irion

Whether you realize it or not, all freedom-loving people are grieving our lost freedom this Independence Day. Psychologists teach that the first reaction to devastating loss is denial. When we lose something that we love, our minds initially deny the event in order to survive the shock. After denial comes bargaining, anger, depression, and finally acceptance. Each stage of grief allows our minds to absorb the new reality and grieve the loss of something cherished.

Last week’s devastating Supreme Court rulings have caused various reactions. Many insist upon explaining Roberts’ ruling as political genius. Some search for a silver lining in the ruling. Others focus on the upcoming election. All of these reactions reflect the first two stages of grief. Most Americans are still in denial or are attempting to bargain-away the shocking loss of freedom inflicted by those that were supposed to defend our freedom.

Some of us have already moved on to anger. Please join us. Anger is a gift.

Unlike people, freedom can be restored. No matter how much freedom is taken away, it can always be taken back. But it will not be given. Those that enslave do not give back freedom willingly. We must fight them for it. So, anger is a useful emotion when grieving for freedom. Anger will motivate us to act.

Stop denying our loss of freedom by imagining genius in Justice Roberts’ treasonous act. Killing constitutional principals in the name of short-term political payback is not genius. It’s an insult to every man or woman that ever died defending freedom.

Stop claiming that Roberts’ ruling is a victory because it created a limit on the commerce clause. The commerce clause is no more limited than it was before the ruling. Prior to Obamacare no one would have imagined that the commerce clause could possibly justify regulation of lack-of-commerce. Last week’s ruling simply confirmed what we already knew. But it left the commerce clause exactly where it has been since Wickard v. Filburn. In fact, the ruling explicitly acknowledged that the rule from Wickard is still the accepted commerce clause rule. This is the rule that got us to where we are today. Why is anyone celebrating this? The answer is: DENIAL.
Continue reading →

SPLC — Memorial Day, Civil Rights and “Criminal Acts”

Posted on by

On this Memorial Day we are supposed to pause to remember the sacrifices of the men and women who have served this country, many of them giving their very lives in that service, in order to protect our most basic freedoms.

Chief among those freedoms are those laid out by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The first of those amendments reads thus:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Enter the Southern Poverty Law Center, a self-proclaimed “civil rights organization,” according to their never-ending stream of press releases and fundraising requests. For a group of alleged civil rights lawyers, the SPLC seems to have a serious problem with the most fundamental civil rights identified in the First Amendment.

Read More at Watching the Watchdogs.

Predator Protection: The Anti’s Endgame

Posted on by

by Broadfoot Media Group on June 7, 2012

Talk to a fellow hunter about wolves, cougars or bears and their first reaction will most likely be that their populations are out of control and must be scientifically managed. Ask an anti-hunter and you will hear that they are the most majestic, critical, endangered and necessary animal to ever set foot in the woods.

The truth is predators are a critical tool in the endgame of the anti-hunting movement far more than they are critical to “balancing our ecosystem”, as they would have the general public believe. The portrayal of the wolf, cougar, bear, coyote and other predators as harmless creatures that only kill the weak and diseased is nothing more than a marketing scheme aimed at making the prey the perpetrator. It has been very successful for the anti-hunting movement as they have made predators the star player in their endgame to ban all hunting.

Read more at Outdoorhub.

The shame of the BLM

Posted on by

by George Knapp

Forty years ago this week, the American people spoke with one voice on an issue that clearly touched the heart of the nation. The Wild Horse and Burro Act was signed into law, over the objections of the powerful cattle industry. Congress was flooded with more letters and telegrams about wild mustangs than for any other issue save the Vietnam War. They insisted that wild horses must be preserved on public lands. That demand became law.

But it is doubtful horse lovers are popping champagne corks to celebrate. The law, or what’s left of it, is a hollow farce, a piss-poor replica of what we thought we were getting, about as authentic as a gift-shop Jackalope.
Continue reading →