The Political Informer

The Political Informer is moving!

2013-07-09T09:32:00.003-07:00

Hey there!

As you might have known, I was working on creating a new website for The Political Informer.

Well! I've finished it! And it's awesome! But don't take my word for it. Click here and check it out for yourself.

All new posts will be published on that site from now on. So bookmark it, add it to your feeds or subscribe to my newsletter to be kept up to date on new posts and to receive bonus content.

I will leave this site up for probably another month then I'll delete it all. Bye bye Blogger... Hello Wordpress!

There's some really cool things are coming to The Political Informer, and it should be a blast!

I'm looking forward to you coming over!

Cheers!

~ John-Pierre Maeli

Whither the Boy Scouts?

2013-06-11T07:57:00.000-07:00

On May 23, the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow openly gay members into its organization, which means that Scout troops are now open for gays to join. Which is not something Scouters are looking forward too.

You might not believe that the vast majority of Boy Scouts are against openly allowing gays to join, but the facts are clear. Over 61% of Scouts and parents are against the “homosexualition of Boy Scouts.” And over 70% of “U.S. Scout groups [are] sponsored by churches and religious organizations.”

The facts are clear. The vast majority of Scouts don’t want this. And shouldn’t you ask how many gays want this as well? Seriously? How many gays are out there dying to get into Scouting? Is there a demand for gays to enter Scouting? Are they feeling the call of the wild?

So far, I have not found any evidence to back up the claim that there’s a demand on the part of gays to enter scouting. But I could be wrong. That does happen sometimes. But what I’m not wrong about is how political this whole debate has been. AT&T’s CEO, Randall Stephenson is one of the major figures that turned this issue into one of politics and money.

Stephenson, who is said to be positioned to become the BSA executive board’s chairman next year, has been praised along with Ernst & Young CEO James Turley for publicly opposing the Scouts’ membership policy and vowing to work from within to change it.

And change it from within he has. But that change will likely be a switch from prosperity to a descent into trivialness for the BSA. Will the Boys Scouts of America continue to survive despite this history changing decision? Or will this mark the end of the BSA?

Here are some points you might want to consider before you make up your own mind on the subject of the BSA’s survival.

1. Religion is a big part of the Boy Scouts of America

Regardless of whether you like it or not, religion has a substantial presence in the Scouting life. The Scout Law exhibits this plainly with the words “A Scout is Reverent.” But it’s also visible in the awards a Scout can earn in the confines of his religious group or domination.

The two most common awards are the “God and Church” and “God and Life” awards. Which include requirements to daily read the Bible, “Memorize a creed or statement of belief or scripture,” and volunteer in your church. It’s obvious in even the most superficial examination that religion plays a major role in Scouts.

2. Over 70% of Scout Troops are sponsored by religious organizations

You already know that religion is a substantial part of Boy Scouts. So it makes sense that religious groups would make up the bulk of those who charter Scout troops. With this in mind, think about the stance that these religious charter organizations are going to have in light of BSA’s decision to openly allow gays into the group. It’s not going to be a stance of indifference.

Most religious groups are ardently against homosexuality and will not welcome the idea of supporting an organization that openly backs the gay agenda. These religious groups will pull their support from the Scout troops they charter. Leaving hundreds of troops to disappear or find new charters.

3. The vast majority of Scouts and their families are against the Gay Amendment

Just like the religious groups who will be pulling their support, quite a few Scout families will leave too. Many of these families belong to a religious group, and the realization that gays can now openly join Boy Scout troops is not something that they are fond of.

And how can you blame them? Gay boys camping, hiking, and sometimes showering with their children is not a pleasant thought. But the greater issue for many Scouting families is that having their kids in an organization that supports the gay agenda conflicts with their beliefs. Which is a legitimate reason.

4. The New Amendment will open individual troops and Churches to law suits

The tragedy is that the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision protecting the BSA’s original policy is now moot. With the policy change, churches and other faith-based organizations—which make up 70 percent of BSA sponsorship—are put directly in the line of fire.

There’s no doubt that Churches will be carefully deciding whether to keep on supporting their respective BSA troops or ditch them. But their decision could be dangerous depending on if their particular state has laws “offering a special class of protection for same sex orientation and conduct.”

And for those Boy Scout Troops who are not welcoming of potential new gay scouts, it could lead to lawsuits. If a troop refuses to allow an openly gay scout into its group they could face lawsuits, not only from the gay individual and his family, but also from the gay community at large. Which could be crippling to many troops who don’t want to leave BSA, but also don’t want to allow gays into their group.

The Boy Scouts of America opened themselves up to a huge decline in membership because of this new amendment. They let money dictate their decisions. Which will probably end up being the death of them. And what’s next for the Boy Scouts? Let transgender scouters and gay scout leaders in too? Because that’s where they headed. The BSA has opened up the flood gates.

And instead of trying to avoid the issue of sexuality they have made it the main vocal point of the entire organization. The issue has been brought to the foreground of the Boy Scouts and that has alienated a large majority of their members, and even those outside of the organization.

When the Canadian Scouts opened up their gates to gays, the organization saw a significant decline in their membership and support. It’s likely that the same will happen here…

Only time will tell how fast it will happen.

John-Pierre Maeli is a writer and an Eagle Scout. Find him and his articles on Google+.

~ This article was originally published on The American Thinker as a guest article.

New Changes on the Way

2013-05-31T07:41:00.001-07:00

Just as everything in life changes, so does blogging.

And it’s no different for The Political Informer.

There are gonna be some serious transformations that will be coming in the next month or so to this blog.

The biggest change will be that I will be moving The Political Informer to WordPress.org.

New site, new features, everything.

It’s going to be pretty cool and I can’t wait to get it all done and show you.

However, I can’t build a totally new site (with the help of a friend and a ton of research) without sacrificing a few things.

One of those sacrifices is going to be my posting schedule.

After this month I will stop posting articles on The Political Informer.

I will do a few guest posts on other sites, which I will post on here.

But my regular posting schedule will be discontinued until I set up the new site.

I will still be active on Google+ posting articles, thoughts, and commenting on posts.

Add me to your circles if you want to keep in touch or you can email me.

When the new site is set up I will send out a post explaining everything (what’s going to happen to this site, how to move, etc).

It should be fun, and I’m looking forward to the future.

God bless…

Do You Want Big Brother Spying on Your Instant Messages?

2013-05-25T06:16:00.003-07:00

In the ever expanding world of government surveillance, Instant Messaging has still found a way to evade the likes of the FBI.

I mean, who wants someone else looking at their IM messages?

You don't even like your parents looking at them. So why does the government think they're an exception to that rule?

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau's ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is "going dark" as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders.

The fact that the FBI's ability is "going dark" should be comforting to you.

Why?

Because it means the FBI's power is slowly dwindling. Which means your rights have a better chance of not being violated... or worse.

Unfortunately, the FBI is part of the government (some would argue it is the government) and with that comes the usual incompetence and downright tyranny.

As seen in the FBI's new version of the same old game.

While the F.B.I.'s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders.

The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department's attention.

So instead of just forcing you to build a backdoor into your customers' instant messaging system, the FBI is now asking to fine any company that refuses to allow them access to your IMs.

How civil of them.

Instead of acknowledging a company's right to protect the privacy of their customers, the FBI is acting like a five year old.

if it doesn't get its way, it cries and sobs to ~~its mommy~~ the government.

And ~~mommy~~ the government always gives her child what he wants.

It's the circle of life in the government...

A bloated government that is.

~ God bless

Add me to your circles on Google+

And Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email

You might also like Mexico is Bleeding You Dry When it comes to Illegal Immigration

Mexico is Bleeding You Dry when it comes to Illegal Immigration

2013-05-20T18:41:00.000-07:00

I'll tell you a riddle. You're waiting for a train, a train that will take you far away. You know where you hope this train will take you, but you don't know for sure. But it doesn't matter. How can it not matter to you where that train will take you?

For those trying to reach the Mexico-American border it really doesn't matter where the train goes, as long as it takes them towards their goal: the United States.

Hundreds of Mexicans hitchhike on the roofs of railroad cars in Arriaga, in southern Mexico to reach the border.

But Mexicans aren't the only ones trying to reach the Mexican-US border.

Migrants from Central America are increasingly trying to enter the Promise Land. Which means making their way through Mexico first.

American arrests of illegal crossers from countries other than Mexico — mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — more than doubled along the southwest border of the United States last year, to 94,532 from 46,997 in 2011.

Yet, Despite this fifty percent plus increase, Mexico refuses to successfully control their Central American border.

The New York Times describes Mexico's Central American border as "porous."

Which is probably an understatement...

Mexican border police don't arrest those trying to cross the border because they don't have the resources. The police would have to feed and house those they arrested until immigration officials arrived.

Something they can't do with their limited funds.

And funds are not the only thing that keeps Mexican border police from doing their job. Sometimes it's just plain incompetence and negligence.

Many Central Americans cross the border into Mexico right under the noses of the police.

Not to mention, border checkpoints that are either barely manned or completely empty.

This is in light of the fact that The United States "has provided equipment and other assistance to help shore up Mexico’s southern border."

But many in Mexico are conflicted about their Central American border.

Many here see migrants as Latin American brethren who need humanitarian assistance as they pass through on their journey north. Yet there is also growing concern that migrants may stay longer in Mexico as its economy picks up and it becomes harder to cross into the United States.

Not to mention, these Latin American brethren also face robbers, rapists, and corrupt police authorities as they travel across Mexico's southern border.

All to escape the dangers and poverty of their home-land...

Which also means that they come here... to the US... illegally.

And Mexico is doing a pathetic job at stopping them. One could say they're not even trying.

So how can the US fix the current immigration problem if our neighbor is "adding to the noise"?

I don't really know.

It's kinda hard to bale water out of a sinking ship when the guy next to you is enlarging the hole in the side of the boat.

At some point, your efforts are not going to be enough to keep the boat afloat.

And you sink... the end.

But the situation could be turned around if you take yourself out of the equation.

You could get a boat and paddle away. Leaving the man to ultimately sink himself.

Harsh, yes. But the US can't keep trying to fix Mexico's problem while simultaneously trying to fix our problems.

Mexico is bleeding you dry.

Will you stay in this situation, or will you push yourself out?

Your choice.

~ God bless

IRS Fraud, Benghazi, Eric Holder: Could this lead to Impeachment?

2013-05-15T18:01:00.000-07:00

By Susan North

Just when you think it can't get any worst (or better depending upon your perspective), another scandal makes headlines.

It seems the Barack H. Obama Foundation (named for Barack H. Obama, Sr.), run by Malik (Roy) Obama, received a very prompt approval on an application to the IRS for tax-exempt status and Lois Lerner may have ignored the norms of approval by giving it a retroactive tax exempt status.

Which is kind of curious seeing as the National Legal and Policy Center complained in May 2011 to the IRS that the foundation was soliciting tax deductible contributions and had not even applied for this IRS status.

What does this foundation do? Interesting question - the truthful answer may be that it provides an income for Malik Obama., brother of Barack Obama, other than that it is pretty vague. But you can see the website here.

If Lois Lerner’s name sounds familiar it probably is because she is a key player in another scandal at the IRS, the scandal of the IRS division responsible for approving applications for 501 c (3) status.

It seems that this IRS division targeted groups with words like “tea party,” and “patriot” in their name, as well as groups which want smaller government or teach the Constitution.

And don’t forget the way the IRS has been targeting Jewish groups who do not agree with the current foreign policy regarding Israel.

The IRS apologized to the Tea Party, but come on, who doesn’t apology when they get caught?

So it seems that the Tea Party really was being targeted and is not just some whiny right wing group.

Nor did this targeting start in 2012 as some are claiming, there is good evidence that this actually began at least as early as 2010 when True the Vote, a Houston based non-profit devoted to honest voting, first began to encounter problems.

This is a clear abuse of power on the part of the IRS.

Everyone pretty much hates the IRS, even much of the left hates them, but the behavior of the IRS under the Obama Administration has obviously been abusive.

And because of the Obama IRS abuse of power even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough used the word ‘lying’ in reference to the White House. Scarborough had Willie Geist on “Morning Joe” recently and Geist said,

"There's been many overblown claims of tyranny and abuse of power from the government over the last few years . . .. This is tyranny. If this is the government, a nonpartisan agency coming after specific groups, this time it's real."

MSNBC’s Lisa Myers and the ACLU agree with the sentiment. And there have been others on the left who have from begun to criticize this administration.

Republican Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have written to the White House in reference to the IRS’ attack on the First Amendment and asked Obama to appoint a special prosecutor.

I cannot image why they did this other than to bring attention to the issue, because special prosecutors under United States law are appointed by the Attorney General.

But the Attorney General is Eric Holder, who has just been caught red-handed approving subpoenas for two months of phone records for the Associated Press.

The Justice Department’s rules require that subpoenas of news organization records must be “personally approved,” by the Attorney General.

So serious is this matter, so outraged, that the Reporters Committee of Freedom of the Press, have signed a letter to Eric Holder regarding the government’s over reach.

The media outlets signing the letter included Atlantic Media, CNN, Cox Media, Forbes, Gannett, McClatchy, The New York Times, Politico, NPR, The Washington Post and many others. Folks, this is serious.

I have not yet discovered if Eric Holder actually approved those subpoenas or if the subpoenas were approved by one of his underlings, but this will come out in the next few days.

If Eric Holder did approve the subpoenas then the AP needs to go after him big time for his role in this scandal as well as the government led gun running activities (created in his Department of Justice) on the southern border.

An operation called Fast and Furious which resulted in the deaths of both Americans and Mexicans.

We have known for years that Eric Holder was not willing to uphold the law, ever since the New Black Panther case of voter intimidation came to light, so this is hardly a surprise.

I’m sure I’m not alone in looking forward to Eric Holder being thrown under the bus, or better yet behind bars.

In addition, the scandal surrounding events on the night of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi are as clear as they are likely to be regarding what happened on the ground in Libya.

Four Americans are murdered that night, including the American ambassador.

What is not clear, and Americans want to know the truth, is not just what happened at the scene, but why it happened at all, and who was responsible for not sending in a rescue team.

Americans especially want to know what Barack Obama was doing.

During the following two weeks Obama kept referring to a video, yet, he knew in real time the night of September 11th that this had nothing to do with a video, and that there was no protest that got out of hand.

He knew it was a terrorist attack. But he could not afford to admit that truth, he had an election to win, and Lady Hillary McClinton wants to run in 2016.

So in their cowardly fashion they lied, and lied, and lied.

Last week Congress began an investigation into what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi with testimony from a few whistleblowers who were actually there that night.

Obama insist it is a “political circus.”

You have to give him credit for trying, but this won’t fly.

Four men died that night and it was almost certainly due to the actions, or lack of action, on the part of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

This is not a circus, it's a Congressional investigation.

The “I” word is now being used more and more frequently in conjunction with Barack Obama.

A quick Google search as I write this gave me just over 3 million hits for the words “impeachment” and “Obama.”

Some of these hits are from the usual suspects, and some of them are from sites like the Huffington Post and other left wing mouthpieces.

But the mere fact that impeachment is even being discussed so widely is a signal that the man who makes Jimmy Carter look good is in big trouble.

Impeachment is a two-step procedure which begins in the House with a simple majority passing a charge of impeachment.

This should not be difficult as the GOP has control of the House.

However the second step requires the Senate to try the accused.

The Senate, consisting of 100 Senators, is controlled by the Democrat Party and it is up to the Senate to conduct a trial.

It is too early to determine the position of the very astute (also sly, cunning, etc.) members of the Senate and how individual Senators will vote, for or against impeachment.

The outcome of such a trial will become more predictable in the coming months.

However, it does look like an impeachment trial (if not a conviction) is highly probable, and it seems pretty certain that all of these scandals will be investigated.

The political circus is just getting underway, and while it would be wise to focus on Iran (before they Nuke us), it is clear that we have several political scandals going at the same time.

I’m going to stock up on popcorn (to be nuked, lower case, in the microwave) because there is going to be a lot of exciting political theater in the near future...

And something tells me that Barack isn’t going to be too happy about this circus either.

~~~

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email

Are you a Patriot Who will Establish Justice?

2013-05-12T18:28:00.001-07:00

If I know anything, it's that you want to make a difference...

A difference in your family, your community, your nation, your generation.

And not just any regular difference either.

You don't want to be like every other "difference maker" who does a good deed, get's on Oprah and then just disappears.

The flame of justice was lit for fifteen minutes and then quickly died into darkness.

You don't want that... nobody wants that.

You want to jump on the scene. Start making a difference, and keep it going for as long as God wills.

And you know what? ....

Justice is sorely needed in this day and age.

There are so many people who are in need. Whether it's financially, politically, or spiritually.

And as a Patriot, your job is to help those in need. And justice is not always giving a homeless guy on the street a few twenties.

It can be as simple as making sure information is easily accessible to others.

Or as big as fixing a corrupted justice system.

The choices are endless and the outcomes are equally important.

So are you going to be a Patriot who establishes justice for all?

Or just another average big mouth, small bite patriot who is more annoying and critical than anything else?

But today, I leave you with Isaiah 42:1-4....

Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coast-lands wait for his law.

~ God bless

"... for Liberty and Justice for all."

US Military Training Islamic Students who then Disappear

2013-05-05T12:58:00.001-07:00

Have you ever read those stories were some good Samaritan tries to help a stranger in need and the story ends with the good Samaritan getting ripped off by the stranger he was trying to help?

One of those, "I told you that chick was crazy" moments.

And you're like, "Come on dude! I could have told you it was gonna end badly."

Well, it seems like the US military has the exact same dilemma.

They try to help, but the story eventually ends with them getting taken advantage of...

It's no secret that the US government has a soft side for not only Islamic nations, but for Muslims themselves.

But letting Muslim students into US military bases to train on our weapon systems and technology is a complete denial of the threat facing this nation.

Especially when those students turn back around and disappear. Never to be seen again; later believed to join sleeper cells.

Paul David Gaubatz documents how foreign students disappear from military bases in his book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America

"In addition thousands of foreigners from Islamic based countries are trained at our military bases about aircraft systems and how to fly them."

Now why would you train students from countries where terrorists and "radicals" are predominantly bred? Not a very smart move...

"When I was a Special Agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations we continuously had open cases on foreign citizens who suddenly left our installations and disappeared into unknown areas of America."

"I have written previously about ‘sleeper cells’. These are some of the people who go underground into sleeper cells. They are trained military personnel who have a working knowledge of English and have been trained on our weapons systems."

So in essence, these students come over to the US, train on military bases on key technology and then ditch.

But they just don't ditch school; they ditch right into a sleeper cell, who has probably been waiting for their arrival.

But there's more...

"Immediately after the attack on 9-11, other Agents and myself were given orders to attempt to track these ‘lost’ foreigners down. It was an impossible hunt. There was a major concern some of the 9-11 Islamic hijackers had even trained in our military flight schools."

In all seriousness, what do you expect these Muslim students to do after they ditch US military bases?

Join a sleeper cell with the intention of not killing anyone?

No! They join these sleeper cells with the goal of attacking American targets, which means people will die.

But what should really irritate you is the complete lack of transparency and concern The US military has for these threats to national security.

The US military doesn't like to admit to Congress or the public that they lost foreign nationals who were supposed to be under their control. Especially if those foreign nationals are from Muslim dominant regions.

It's bad press for them and for Muslim apologists.

Now wouldn't that freak people out....

~ God bless

Add me to your circles on Google+
And Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email

You might also like to read The Physical & Political Side to Bullying

The Stupidest Man in America

2013-04-30T19:24:00.001-07:00

By Susan North

What is it with Democrats? Thanks to The Daily Caller (4/26/2013), I just learned that Missouri state senator Ryan McKenna has submitted a handwritten (how quaint) amendment to a higher education bill which would ban Missourians over the age of 8 from wearing seersucker suits.

Seersucker. Seriously? What business is it of the government to ban a type of fabric? Who does Ryan McKenna think he is, Senator Patty Murray from Washington state perhaps? (Ann Coulter once published an entire column on Murray titled “The Stupidest Woman in America.”)

Now for whose lacking textile expertise, seersucker is staple of the Southern wardrobe worn by both men and women. It is generally made in two colors using a slack-tension weave technique, i.e. the stripes of one color are woven slackly, while those of the other color are woven tightly (the variables are endless, for example only one color might be used).

When removed from the loom some of the warp (lengthwise) yarns crinkle while others do not due to the tension they received in the weaving. It is a low profit, high cost fabric due to the slow weaving process. This thin, cotton fabric is ideal for spring and summer wear. It is easily confused with pelisse fabric which is created using a chemical, not a woven method, but looks very similar.

According to McKenna it seems that about half of the Missouri state senate wear seersucker suits and not infrequently wear them on Wednesday due to some coordinated effort. McKenna believes that children are cute wearing the crinkly fabric while adults look ridiculous, hence his efforts to ban it. He now has claimed that it was not ‘germaine” (sic) to the bill on higher education and was done as a joke. A “joke?” If this is a joke it is one that only little boys under the age of 8 would find funny.

How did this lame brain get elected to anything?

Well, I checked his website and his biography explains it all. His father and his grandfather were both elected to the ~~Massachusetts~~ Missouri legislature. His biography also explains that he has a degree in education (even Patty Murray has a degree in education, known as the least demanding field of study) from a Missouri university where, if he took an English composition course he didn’t learn very much.

Not only is his biography poorly written but we are now at the end of April 2013 and his “goals for the 2010 legislative session” are included so it clearly hasn’t been updated in a while.

McKenna may think that adults look ridiculous in seersucker, but from my way of thinking Democrats look ridiculous, perhaps not for what they wear but for what they do and say.

While I oppose banning Democrats, the voters ought to ban voting for someone so completely silly as to attempt a ban seersucker. The last time I checked state legislatures were elected to deal with real problems, not issues of style.

Now excuse me, it is time to get out my summer wardrobe – I think I’ll wear a seersucker suit this week.

Remaining Boston Bomber Admits that Islam was a Main Motivator

2013-04-29T04:13:00.001-07:00

Tsarnaev is telling investigators he and his brother were motivated by religion to plot their carnage, media reports citing anonymous federal sources say. (source Breitbart.com)

The last piece in the puzzle, wouldn't you say?

The Boston Bombers were Muslims. That's obvious.

In 2008, the terrorist brothers started to dive deeper into Islam with a man named Misha, who was an Armenian native and a Muslim himself. They had long conversations with this man at their house about what's right and wrong in Islam, and what Muhammad commands, etc.

Then the two brothers got their hands on Jihadist publications; including Al-Qaeda's magazine.

Along with that, the older brother also started to watch and read InfoWars; a conspiracy website that claims, among other things, that 9/11 was an inside job and that the government is kidnapping children.

He also tried to find a particular book that was written in 1903, that claims that Jews are trying to take over the world.

However, a family member of the brothers said that “He never said he hated America or he hated the Jews, but he was fairly aggressive toward the policies of the U.S. toward countries with Muslim populations. He disliked the wars.”

Combine that with Jihadist and Islamic influences, and you've got a individual that is heading toward jihad.

So it's no surprise that that remaining brother (the other one was killed in a fire fight with cops) stated that Islam was their main motivator for blowing up innocent people at a marathon.

If you follow a religion that spread violence and hatred, and you're not strong enough to overcome those tendencies then you'll slowly slide into what you saw at the Boston Marathon...

Destruction and hatred.

~ God bless....

Add me to your circles on Google+
And Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email

You might also like to read The Physical & Political Side to Bullying

Bob Beckel Finally Makes Sense

2013-04-25T05:48:00.001-07:00

By Susan North

Bob Beckel is not one of my favorite people, in fact even if Bob Beckel was not on the wagon he wouldn’t make my list of people to meet with for an “adult beverage.” While the man has a certain charm and is obviously very smart, his consistent support of Democrat Party officials and the Democrat Party line along with his short fuse mitigate any sense that this guy has, well, almost any sense.

But Monday on Fox News’ “The Five” he made a lot of sense, and I’d like to congratulate him for finally coming out and saying what needs to be said:

"In the Muslim communities around the world, they do not like us, I think we really have to consider, given the fact that so many people hate us, that we're going to have to cut off Muslim students coming to this country for some period of time so that we can absorb what we've got, and look at what we've got, and decide whether some of the people here should be sent back home or to prison."

The press has been silent on his statement, probably because he is a Democrat, although maybe because he was speaking on Fox, or maybe because what he said is considered outrageous by them (of course he has made other statements which even the right would consider outrageous). But the mainstream media has also been silent on the fact that America now has a 500% increase in the number of students from Saudi Arabia over the number of Saudi students in the USA in 2001. Is this nuts, or what?

Foreign Students
This is not the 1950s or 1960s. Giving student visas to foreign nationals HURTS America. A great many are studying in serious programs for degrees in science and engineering, but why should we train scientist and engineers for other countries? At the same time a high percentage of foreign students remain in the country, and many times they are given preference in hiring thanks to “diversity” laws. This means they are taking jobs which might otherwise be available for Americans.

Foreign students, to the best of my knowledge, have no requirements on the nature of their studies. Which means that they can just as easily be studying fashion design, French literature, or drama as they could be studying one of the hard sciences. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize their studies? I can appreciate perhaps training medical personnel who come from 3^rd world countries. But there are too many fields where the student might use the knowledge gained in say, the engineering of bridges, to blow up bridges in America. And while I believe in sharing, and do not believe that the pie is only so big, for every successful foreign student, even in fashion design, they are taking a market share which might otherwise have been taken by an American citizen who upholds the Constitution.

We should want every country in the world to be successful, and for their citizens to succeed. But it should not be done at the expense of the American taxpayer, or the American who cannot find employment in their field or a market for their products because it has been taken by a foreign citizen who may or may not stay in America, who may or may not assimilate. This makes no sense.

The Muslim Problem in America

There is a Muslim problem in America. Muslims do not want the same things as Americans want, contrary to what one so often hears. Muslim culture, goals, and agenda are not just different from that of America and Americans – they are in opposition. Bob Beckel touched on this, they do hate us. They are subject to Sharia law and Sharia law is in opposition to the American Constitution, in opposition to liberty. Sharia law is just one of the many forms tyranny takes, but it is the most aggressive.

To return to the issue of foreign students, what they study is not the only problem. A foreign student in an easy course (not the hard sciences) has more time to devote to extra-curricular activities. When I was a student twenty years ago there were no Islamic student associations on campus – now they are everywhere. While a few may be in the hard sciences, many are not and they and their families are there to provide numbers, to reinforce the base, and to proselytize, and that is a huge problem. And unlike students from other cultures those from Islamic countries are organized and determined. The student visa is an easy way for foreign countries to send quantities of their youthful citizens to this country. Many Islamic countries, thanks to large birth rates 10-30 years ago (the birth rates are now declining) find sending their youth abroad to study serves two purposes: it relieves the country of some otherwise unemployed (and potential troublesome) youth and secondly it helps to spread Islam.

Europe and Japan have the oppose problem. They have a shortage of youth between 10-30 years and need to keep them in their country. Besides it is easier to obtain a visa to study in the USA if you hold for example a Saudi passport, than if you are for example Danish (thanks to Teddy Kennedy and his change in immigrate laws). There are other countries and other cultures which do not much like us either, but by far the Islamic world is the worst.

Bob Beckel makes a lot of sense. But what he said should have been said a LONG time ago, and it should have been enforced a long time ago. Now that he has said it I hope the Bob Beckel will say more and say it more forcefully, and say it again, and again, and again.

The Political and Physical Side of Being Bullied

2013-04-20T11:18:00.000-07:00

If you're like most decent people, hearing horrific stories of what many kids have had to endure at the hands of bullying is infuriating.

Girls picked on because they don't fit in with the preconceived notions of popularity...

Boys ostracized because they refuse to give up on their values, or fit in with the rather unintelligent group of muscle-flaunting dimwits....

The stories are endless and disgusting.

Take for instance, this one girl, Audrie Pott, who hanged herself after "being sexually battered while passed out at a party, and then humiliated by online photos of the assault"

Or this guy, 15 year old Benji Backer who was bullied (and cussed at) by his teacher for being a conservative.

Not only are both of these stories incredibly saddening (especially Audrie's), but they both show different ends of the bullying spectrum.

One side is based on how you act, and how you look....

The other is what you believe, and what you support....

Benji pointed out that teachers, and a large portion of the media, are against bullying homosexuals. As are many Conservatives and Libertarians. Yet Benji points out how hypocritical many of those in the media are.

If teachers expect bullying to end with homosexuals, they should want it to end with every type of bullying possible, including political views.

But as many of you have seen, and personally experienced, that is not always the case.

Benji Backer was lucky. His bullying problem is actually being investigated by the school. What will come out of it is uncertain, but at least the problem is being acknowledged and investigated by the school principle.

However, Audrie Pot had to take her life to bring her bullying to light. And that's what kills me.

Even though those responsible have been arrested it took the death of a high school girl to bring about that justice. Which I would argue is not justice.

So now your filled with depression with some hatred and possibly a clenched fist. What can be done to end this you ask?

For one, you can empower your children to take a stand against bullying. None of that loving peace talk that many so called "experts" spread who have never even experienced being bullied. You take a stand by being strong.

Which doesn't always mean beating the snot out of the bully (which does work pretty well).

One strategy you could use is by utilizing social media. Spread the word. Get a picture of the bully and then tell the world what kind of person that bully really is. The more people know that he or she is a no good sucking bully the more pressure will be put on him.

This strategy could bring heat on you from the bully, but that's when you get any buddy you can and make a stand.

Standing against a bully is never easy, but it sure beats the heck out of "ignoring it." As if that has ever worked out well.

How many stories are out there of kids who have killed themselves because of bullying?

I would say to many....

~ God bless and good luck!

Add me to your circles on Google+
And Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email

Millions of Dollars are Accidentally Ending up in the Hands of Terrorists in Afghanistan

2013-04-16T19:19:00.003-07:00

Taxes are annoying...

High taxes are infuriating...

But when your taxes are used to fund terrorist groups.....

"What in the name of everything righteous???"

I would guess that's your general response when you hear that your hard earned dollars are being used to fund terrorist organizations (sometimes your expression even has a few choice words in it). It's ridiculous and embarrassing.

But that's exactly what's happening over in Afghanistan... only it's by accident.

The U.S. government may accidentally be funneling millions of dollars to the very terrorists and insurgents it's fighting in Afghanistan through sloppy contracting regulations, according to a new government report.

Wait, what?

Insurgents are receiving millions of dollars because some bureaucrat did a sloppy job writing up regulations?

That's just insane, don't you think? Not to mention incompetent

But what's really ironic is that these sloppy regulations are in a bill that was designed to keep money out of the hands of terrorists!

...Section 841, part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that describes how the U.S. government is supposed to identify individuals or companies with suspected ties to insurgents, confirm that information, pass it along to the head of the contracting activity, then to the primary contractor and finally to the targeted subcontractors whose business deals would then be voided or restricted based on guidance from higher up.

...Section 841 was part of a "variety of efforts" undertaken by the government to keep American contracting money out of terrorists' hands in the wake of incidents like the $2.16 billion Host Nation Trucking contract.

Well is that just sad or what?

Bureaucrats try to keep "contracting money" out of the hands of terrorists (for good reason), yet, end up making loop holes that allow such money to flow into the hands of insurgents.

And politicians wonder why Americans like you and me don't want the government to intervene in our personal lives. They can't even get their own affairs in order.

This, my friends, is just another great example (out of a myriad instances) of why a bloated government is not only ineffective, but also dangerous to it's own people.

Letting tax dollars flow into the hands of terrorists is definitely dangerous. Don't you say?

Any thoughts on the ridiculousness of it all? Leave them in the comments below.

~ God bless....

Add me to your circles in Google+
And Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email

The Left No Longer has a Strong Argument that Terrorism Comes from Poverty or Illiteracy

2013-04-11T19:23:00.002-07:00

If you've ever had a discussion about the root of terrorism with a Leftist then you've probably heard the argument that only poor uneducated people become terrorists. This argument would then lead into the claim that education is the best prevention against terrorism. Build schools, libraries, and universities and you will see the education level increase and terrorism decrease. It sounds logical at first, but evidence paints a different picture.

Not a single study could make a cogent case that terrorism had economic roots. This lack of evidence culminated in a recent review of the literature by Martin Gassebner and Simon Luechinger of the KOF Swiss Economic Institute.

The authors estimated 13.4 million different equations, drew on 43 different studies and 65 correlates of terrorism to conclude that higher levels of poverty and illiteracy are not associated with greater terrorism. In fact, only the lack of civil liberties and high population growth could predict high terrorism levels accurately.

So does this relation also hold for Pakistan? It appears so. Christine Fair from Georgetown University documents a similar phenomenon for Pakistan. By utilising data on 141 killed militants, she finds that militants in Pakistan are recruited from middle-class and well-educated families. This is further corroborated by Graeme Blair and others at Princeton University.

They too find evidence of a higher support base of terrorism from those who are relatively wealthy in Pakistan. In a robust survey of 6,000 individuals across Pakistan, it is found that the poor are actually 23 times more averse to extremist violence relative to middle-class citizens.

The authors further disproved the supposed connection between terrorism and economic position by studying data Pakistan between 1973 and 2010. What they found was that even though elevated amounts of terrorism reduced GDP, imports and exports, a higher GDP, and imports and exports did not lower terrorism. "The bottom line: when the economy was not doing well, terrorism did not increase and vice versa."

Even though education and wealth have nothing to do with terrorism the researchers did find one significant connection to the growth of terrorism.

But he observes another pattern in data: a systematic relationship between political oppression and higher incidence of terrorism.

He relates terrorism to voting behaviour and concludes that terrorism is a “political, not an economic phenomenon”. He defends his results by arguing at length that political involvement requires some understanding of the issues and learning about those issues is a less costly endeavour for those who are better educated.

Just as the more educated are more likely to vote, similarly they are more likely to politically express themselves through terrorism. Hence, political oppression drives people towards terrorism.

To understand what causes terrorism, one need not ask how much of a population is illiterate or in abject poverty. Rather one should ask who holds strong enough political views to impose them through terrorism.

It is not that most terrorists have nothing to live for. Far from it, they are the high-ability and educated political people who so vehemently believe in a cause that they are willing to die for it. (Via The Gates of Vienna)

In the case of many terrorists today, that "strong political view" is Islam. The Quran makes it clear that infidels are enemies of Muslims (4:101), Muslims and non-believers are not equal (45:21), and that Muslims should fight the infidels (25:52).

And wouldn't you agree that just because you have an education doesn't mean you are smarter or morally higher. Claiming that most educated people won't participate in terrorism just doesn't make sense. Education is just knowledge. It's not a moral compass; it's a way to obtain one, but it doesn't automatically give your conscience a sense that blowing up innocent civilians is wrong.

For those in political oppressed regions, where it's hard to have your voice heard or even respected by the law, terrorism is an obvious choice for two reasons. 1) it gives you instant recognition, and 2) gives you a sense of respect in the eyes of the authority.

This is not to say that an open political system would eliminate acts of terrorism. It takes a deeper look into the reasons and ideologies behind Islamic terrorism to discover practical solutions to the problem. And that is for another day (wink, wink).

But since you and I are on the subject at the moment, is there any practical solutions that you can think of? It's a highly controversial and complex discussion, but it's a discussion that needs to be had.

God bless...

And never be afraid to speak the truth.

P.S. ~ Check out my latest article on the Truth about Wealth Hoarding explained by a closet rich person. It'll definitely give you a different look on how the Wealthy manage their wealth.

Margaret, Lady Thatcher – Savior of Britain

2013-04-09T05:17:00.002-07:00

Written by Susan North:

David Cameron, the current Prime Minister, has said as much, he said that “she didn’t only lead our country, she saved our country.” A seemingly good and decent man, would that he were cut of the same cloth.

I shall never forget my second trip to London. Every evening near dusk the candle salesmen appeared on the streets, it was 1974, Edward Health, a Conservative, was Prime Minister, and there was a coal strike. Coal created the electricity necessary to light the streets, homes, and businesses of England and no one knew how long the strike would last. Hence one went without electricity for a certain number of hours every day, hence the candle salesmen.

Margaret Thatcher’s policies put an end to trade union control of the country, making it a prosperous country once again. The candle salesmen disappeared. Her impact on Britain was profound. Under her leadership 1 million renters in Council Housing (public housing) were able to buy their own units, something not previous possible because the council would not sell. This was all a part of her privatization efforts which included sale of nationalized industries thus creating a one-time boost to the national economy and long term success for the individual industries which were freed of government control. In the process she removed the trade union’s stranglehold on the British worker and the British economy. In short she saved Britain which had, since the end of World War II been in continual decline in large part thanks to the Labour Party and their failed policies.

Opposed to greater integration into the European Union at the time of her prime ministry she was roundly criticized for her position. Yet, time has shown that she was right all along. And working with those other greats of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Pope John II, they helped to bring down communism in Poland which in turn brought about the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Margaret Thatcher was a patriot from the ruled, not the ruling, class. The two were so unlike, yet both so typically conservative with their determination to make their country great again, with their clear eyed realization that freedom is the answer, not government. Or as Margaret Thatcher’s dear friend Ronaldus Magnus (Ronald Reagan) liked to say “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

She was known as “The Iron Lady.” Although applied to other female heads of state, this title has mostly been applied to Margaret Thatcher who was first called that in 1976 in the Soviet newspaper Red Star. That she was seen as an iron lady by Britain’s number one enemy (if you exclude the British radical left and the British Labour Party) three years before she became Prime Minister is evidence of the high profile she had already achieved by then. She made things happen, she put the “Great” back in Great Britain.

The Truth about Wealth Hoarding from a Closet Rich Person

2013-04-06T07:41:00.001-07:00

While perusing through my Quora feed a few days ago I came across a particular question about what it is like to be discreetly wealthy. It wasn't the question that looked interesting, but what one particular "closet rich person" said on the subject of wealth hoarding.

After describing his particular situation, the author then went on to argument against the common claim that wealthy people "hoard" their wealth. He gave some very interesting thoughts on the subject and in general gave a good defense of the benefits of Capitalism.

Below is the section of his answer where he argues against the perceived hoarding of wealth by the rich.

Just wanted to reply to Andrea Teale's comment specifically, and to the general notion that wealthy people are hoarding money. Unfortunately this is a common misunderstanding of our banking system and of capitalism... It is also this belligerence that leads many wealthy to want to be anonymous. I'm not going to bore you with a thorough explanation of why this is wrong, but there are three things you need to keep in mind right off the bat:

1) Often much of this wealth is illiquid. This means that a wealthy individual's assets are tied up in the companies that he/she have created. One cannot simply turn these into cash and hand it out... especially when we're talking about smaller businesses that are not public. I suppose you could just give your business to the government/a charity, but this would represent a destruction of societal value. Jobs would be lost and the services you enjoy would not be produced.

2) Most significantly this view represents a massive misunderstanding of capitalism. Very few wealthy people (or non-wealthy for that matter) just park their money under their mattresses. It is virtually always invested. What does this mean?

-One of the closest equivalents to 'hoarding cash', in terms of risk, is investment in bonds. However, this investment results in things like the local public school system being able to afford to build a new building, cities being able to repair or renew their infrastructure, and the federal government being able to fund things like health-care program expansion.

-Or on the riskier side, wealthy individuals frequently invest in startups. These investments are central to capitalism functioning well and provide people from all levels of society the ability to move up the socio-economic spectrum. They are also responsible for innovation, and helping you receive better health-care, better access to people around the world (i.e. Quora).

-Sometimes the wealthy keep their money in cash in banks. However, yet again, the reality here is that 'hoarding' is not occurring. Banks lend the money you have deposited out to others. This means that you can get a mortgage to buy a house, or have a credit card or pay for college. It also means that businesses can borrow money to expand operations and potentially create new jobs.

You could argue all of this capital should be seized by the government, but history has shown pretty resoundingly that governments are very poor at allocating capital. There may be less inequality (government officials not-withstanding), but everyone will be worse off. History is clear here.

Also: See the copious amounts of research on money multipliers and the velocity of money to get a more complete picture.

3) The only educated argument you could start with is that sometimes this system leaves some behind. For example, it would be hard to argue that people in Somalia (to use your example) can elevate themselves out of poverty through sheer hard work. It's still probably possible, but I think a rational person would have a tough time saying that a hard working and smart Somali 20 year old is on the same footing as an ivy league educated, wealthy, and equally hard working and smart 20 year old in the US. We wouldn't even have to go as far as Somalia to see this. Neighborhoods around this country provide similarly dire circumstances. The problem is that for all the money that has flowed to these areas (and it has been a lot), little has really changed. Are there exogenous solutions that can be imposed? Possibly. Will these solutions require money? Probably. But the problem is there are no obvious solutions yet. The beauty of capitalism is that money follows good ideas... you just need the ideas.

Capitalism has been the single biggest success for humanitarianism. It of course isn't perfect... But it has been an unambiguously incredible force for good.

Sadly the author of this piece remained anonymous for obvious reasons, but his argument is still important to the plight of Capitalism and the economy in general. In many circumstances, the claim that the wealth hoard their money has led to many agendas that forcibly take their hard earned money, whether it be through excessive income taxes or penalties. This belief has been used extensively by the Left as well as Obama to justify raising taxes on the rich.

You might not like rich people, but you cannot deny their importance to the Capitalistic system. The author above mentions that in his answer by referring to how the wealthy invest in start-ups and supply money to be used for the benefit of the community. In a Capitalist society the rich are one of the key components to a healthy working society and country. Which is why America, and other Capitalistic nations have been so successful over the past decades.

If you're interested in reading the author's entire answer there's a link to the original answer below for you to read. Enjoy! And God bless....

Read Quote of Anonymous' answer to Wealthy People and Families: Wealthy People and Families: What is it like to be discreetly wealthy? on Quora

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.

Freedom in the 50 States: Interactive map

2013-04-04T09:36:00.002-07:00

You ever wanted to know how well-off your state is? You hear about all the waste and the corruption in the news. It could be New York's enlarging nanny state, or California's ever looming approach toward the sea (and I know you're praying for it to come true). It seems everything about your state is negative these days...

And frankly it's annoying...

But maybe today will be different. Maybe you might just find out that your state is one of the top five freest states in American... or you could find out that it's number fifty and then have a perfectly good excuse as to why you should move.

When you click your state it'll take you to another window where you can learn more about individual freedoms in your state. For example Economical, Personal, Education, homeschooling and right to work.

And if you want to know how it's all calculated and how they even come to such conclusions you can visit the "How it's Calculated" page to learn more.

Share the results of your state and any other findings in the comment section below.

God bless . . .

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.

6 Things you didn’t know about Poverty

2013-03-30T05:56:00.001-07:00

So you think that those stuck in poverty in many Third World countries can be helped with foreign aid. Or maybe it’s redistribution of wealth that will help them climb out of the pit. It makes sense doesn’t it? Give a person money and they will be better than when they started. However, such avenues of attack are incapable of lifting those in poverty into real wealth and prosperity.

Throwing money at those below you and hoping they make productive use of it is unrealistic. The out dated game of “money throwing” needs to be changed. It doesn’t work and it never has. The rules need to be switched when it comes to eradicating poverty.

As Lant Pritchett said, during a seminar at the Wheatley International Affairs Conference in Sundance, Utah: “Before you get into a discussion about development, there are some things you need to know."

Rich People in Poor Countries are Poor

According to Pritchett, many rich people in developing countries are much poorer than those who are poor in rich countries. One reason for this is the correlation between a person’s wealth and their income spent on food. The higher the percentage of income spent on food the more likely you’re not doing so good. For example, the bottom 10 percent of Americans spend 17 percent of their money on food. Compared to the top 10 percent in India who spend 40 percent on food.

You’re poor because of where you live

In many third world countries there is a severe lack of a productive use of labor. Many of these countries don’t have institutions that make productive work possible. As a result, the populace will remain poor. In developed nations, hundreds of companies and businesses exist that are capable of adequately employing the people. Poorer countries don’t enjoy such blessings and are in most cases unable to provide them.

Well-off countries have these four aspects

A productive economy, a government that is responsive to the citizens, a capable bureaucracy, and the rule of law. Lant Pritchett says “Digging wells in Haiti might provide a bit of relief to that country's poor, but it isn’t going to change any of these four things. In fact, many kinds of humanitarian aid may short-circuit the development.”

Education doesn’t help

You might think that by providing education to people in poor countries will help them climb out of poverty, but education has almost no affect on their financial state. Think about it. If no place exists for someone to productively utilize your labor then how is education going to help you get a job? At best, it opens an avenue for you to move to America and get a job. And at worst, as Pritchett says, the increase of educated people in a corrupt country may lead to a more sophisticated corruption.

Technology doesn’t help either

Many of you have probably experienced the situation where your job was replaced with a piece of technology. Not only does it save the company money, but it’s also more productive than the average worker. However, it means you’re out of a job. This same principle exists in undeveloped nations with high levels of unemployed and unskilled labor. The only person technology helps in those countries is the company.

However, immigration does

“The principal way rich countries disadvantage the poor world is not through unfair trade, or through intrusive and ineffective aid, or by forcing repayment of debts. The primary policy pursued by every rich country is to prevent unskilled labor from moving into their countries. And because unskilled labor is the primary asset of the poor world, it is hard to even imagine a policy more directly inimical to a poverty reduction agenda or to 'pro-poor growth' than one limiting the demand for unskilled labor.” ~Pritchett

The way you help the poor in undeveloped countries is by letting them come over into rich countries to work. Give them three year visas and watch as they earn a substantial larger amount of money than they ever could in their respective country.

It’s easy to throw money at the disadvantaged of the world and hope everything works for the best. Progressives like it because they don’t have to do anything. They just steal your money and then send it to the poor suckers in the Middle East and Africa. It never occurs to them that working might help the poor out of their dilemma.

So here’s a thought, stop pushing the doctrine of redistribution of wealth as a productive means to end poverty. Fix immigration and make it easier for people to come over here. Encourage legal immigration; don’t try to stop the disadvantaged from coming over here to make a better life for themselves.

That is the American dream . . .

And that is why America has been so prosperous . . .

~ God bless

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.

P.S. Check out the last part of the Civilization Jihad series entitled Civilization Jihad: Part 3: Muslims and Does Islamophobia Exist? Not According to this Muslim Writer

The Coyote Principle: Texas vs. California

2013-03-29T04:59:00.002-07:00

By Susan North

Twenty years ago I lived in California and it is a lovely place, but I was young and clueless and today think before moving somewhere. Along with sunshine I look for common sense and fiscal responsiblity in a state. True California has a lot to offer, but what it offers is offset by the insanity of it all.

I once heard that if you open a business in Los Angeles, it could require as many as 80 (yes, I said 80) inspectors prior to opening. For example if you have an awning the awning inspector has to approve it, and the list goes on. I once met a woman who could not leave because of custody issues and she was having a hard time finding work in her field, despite many years of experience, because the insurance companies were leaving the state as quickly as they could. And this was 20 years ago – things have only gotten worse. So recently I moved to Texas, and this is why:

Of all the new U.S. jobs created since 2008 70% were n Texas

Texas has no state income tax

Texs is a right to work state

Texas has the world’s 12th largst economy

Recently the governor announced that Texas has a $13 Billion (with a B) surplus, and that he would like to use 1.3 Billion on one-time only infrastructure improvements and return the rest to the taxpayers. Yes, I said Billion. And yes he wants to return the rest, the problem is that state has no mechanism for doing this, therefore he has asked the state legistlature to pass a bill which will make it possible.

Chuck DeVore, Vice President of Policy for the Texas Public Policy Foundation has written a good run-down with a lot more details on the reasons why Texas is better off than California. You can view it here. Or if you want a condensed version San Francisco Chronicle (amazing, but maybe they didn’t understand that California doesn’t come out well in this) published one here.

And here is a little story, which explains it all:

THE COYOTE PRINCIPLE

CALIFORNIA

The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks the Governor's dog, then bites the Governor.

1. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie 'Bambi' and then realizes he should stop because the coyote is only doing what is natural.

2. He calls animal control. Animal Control captures the coyote and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it.

3. He calls a veterinarian....the vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases.

4. The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged.

5. The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is now safe.

6. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a 'coyote awareness program' for residents of the area.

7. The State Legislature spends $ 2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world.

8. The Governor's security agent is fired for not stopping the attack. The State spends $150,000 to hire and train a new agent with additional special training re: the nature of coyotes.

9. PETA protests the coyote's relocation and files a $5 million suit against the State.

TEXAS:

The Governor of Texas is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks his dog.

1. The Governor shoots the coyote with his State-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent $ 0.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge.

2. The buzzards eat the dead coyote.

And that, my friends, is why California is broke and Texas is not!!

“I hear pronounce you guilty of all Charges”

2013-03-26T06:10:00.001-07:00

Here again, Islam’s sentence hangs on the words of one of America’s Founding Fathers. There’s only two ways it can go. Society accepts Islam under the right to freedom of religion and you wait for the wolf to eat the sheep. Or society kicks out Islam on its rear end.

Why would society do that in the first place? Several arguments can be made for such action. However, one of America’s Founding Fathers made a logical argument for the removal of Islam from society. John Adams outlines the two main requirements for Freedom of Religion in a letter to Francis van der Kemp, in October 2, 1818.

I will not condescend to employ the word toleration. I assert that unlimited freedom of religion, consistent with morals and property, is essential to the progress of society and the amelioration of condition of mankind.

What John Adams is saying here is that the unlimited Freedom of Religion depends on two conditions. One of those being morality, and the other being property.

In regards to morality, every religion must accept the moral code in each society they enter. For the United States of America, and most other Western nations, the moral code would be the condemnation of murder, stealing, rape, lying, and the list goes on. Even though the disapproval of each particular act depends on the region and culture, a widespread disapproval does exist.

Compare that idea of thought with the actions of Islam today. Sharia Law is antithetical to American law and morality. As an American, you do not believe that women should hold a lower position in society than men, or that different religious groups should pay taxes because of their belief. Neither do you believe that thieves should have their hands cut off, or that non-believers are second class citizens. You believe in the Freedom to make your own choices, have your own beliefs and live your own lives. Islam clearly fails this test.

The next test is private property. The key to a Free society is the recognition and protection of private property. Any religion that denies that fact is a threat not only to other religions, but to Freedom in general. Islam is the only religion that denies the right of non-Muslims to own and freely operate private property. From the restriction of how tall non-Muslim buildings can be, to where non-Muslims can build religious buildings. You can see it in the destruction of Christian churches and homes in Egypt, Sudan and Nigeria. Also in the destruction of Hindu temples. Islam, and many Muslims, obviously have no respect for private property. So where does this leave Islam in regards to the above statement by John Adams?

Islam has failed both tests. Its moral code is antithetical to America’s, and it flatly denies private property. In essence, it has lost its right to Freedom of Religion. It has no place in any freedom loving society.

But wait a minute you say. If you deny one group a right doesn’t it open up a precedent that can then be used against another group? Yes it can. However, when a certain group violates individual freedom, it is the duty of the community to deal with that violation however they see fit. It may be that the only action taken is to ban the building of mosques. Or perhaps Muslims are forbidden from being elected to any government office. The options are numerous. But something must be done to curb this growing threat.

What options do you think would work to curb the power of Islam in America, or would you support totally banning Islam? Share your opinion in the comments below and have a great day.

~ God bless . . .

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.

P.S. Check out the last part of the Civilization Jihad series entitled Civilization Jihad: Part 3: Muslims and Does Islamophobia Exist? Not According to this Muslim Writer

Benghazi Survivors hidden from Congress and the Media

2013-03-20T17:48:00.001-07:00

Benghazi was not only a disaster for the US government, but also a major mess-up on their part. Covering it up is just their way of hiding further evidence on their incompetence. It's not surprising that they would cover it up, especially with the type of people that Obama has in his administration. However, as they try to push all this under the rug they make it extremely difficult for other government agencies and officials to learn from the mistakes of Benghazi. They risk repeating history.

Courtesy of TheBlaze.com

While Congress presses for more information surrounding the infamous Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack, Graham says the survivors feel as if they can’t reach out and tell their stories. Critics of the White House’s handling of Benghazi say survivors have been completely inaccessible to Congress and the media.

When asked about Benghazi survivors, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, “I’m sure that the White House is not preventing anyone from speaking.”

Graham told Fox News he isn’t buying it. He said, “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”

Graham continued to voice concern about the inaccurate or incomplete accounts that came from the Obama administration in the days following the attack. He is among a handful of Republican lawmakers pressing for access to and more information about the survivors.

Other GOP congressman, like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), argue the Obama White House has offered “zero” documents on the survivors, much less provided names of the people attacked in Libya.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) on Friday said the Obama administration is “covering up something” in regards to the Benghazi attack, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

A congressional source tells Fox News that Hill staffers investigating the attack believe about 37 personnel were in Benghazi on behalf of the State Department and CIA on Sept. 11. With the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, about 33 people were evacuated. Of them, a State Department official confirmed there were three diplomatic security agents and one contractor who were injured in the assault – one seriously.

So where are these survivors? Why haven't they been on TV interviews and in the news?

It's likely that the Obama administration does have something to do with this. Politicians rarely like to have huge mistakes out there in the public for everyone to view and criticize. You have to keep the masses ignorant and dumb...

If you have witnessed any interviews of the survivors or any news about them please share the link in the comment section below.

~ God bless . . .

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.

P.S. Check out the last part of the Civilization Jihad series entitled Civilization Jihad: Part 3: Muslims and Does Islamophobia Exist? Not According to this Muslim Writer

Does Islamophobia exist? Not according to this Muslim Writer

2013-03-15T13:47:00.000-07:00

You’ve all heard of the term Islamophobia: the supposed fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims. Chances are if you’ve spoken out against Muslim crimes you’ve been called an “Islamophob” at one point or another. Or maybe you were discussing how Jihad and the oppression of women are inherent in the Quran. Someone didn’t like what you had to say, but couldn’t come up with a logical argument against it so they just called you names.

What if Islamophibia wasn’t real? What if it was just created by a bunch of Islamic centers to silence critics? That’s exactly what one Muslim writer is arguing on The Huffington Post.

There are hundreds of Islamic organizations in North America and each one wants to take ownership of it. Is it all about ownership? It shouldn't be. Is it all about portraying a better image of Muslims? I doubt it. Is it all about challenging the self-created fear of Islamophobia? Perhaps.
What do I mean by "self-created fear of Islamophobia"? Do I dare to say that Islamophobia actually doesn't exist at all? Yep, it didn't exist but some of our Islamic centres created the term and spread it around through their actions.

For some of you, the idea that Islamophobia doesn’t exist might not come as a surprise. However, the fact that it was acknowledged to be true by a Muslim on The Huffington Post is worth noting.

Ever since the term Islamophobia was coined, the Left and many Muslim figures have been trying to paint the Muslim community as victims. Victims of bigotry. Victims of hatred; and victims of ignorance. This particular Muslim rebukes the victim status the Muslim community has had to wear. He argues that, “as Muslims we should identify ourselves with the culture and land we associate with… [and] live a normal life instead of preaching the addiction of victimhood.”

Many of his reasons for Muslims to integrate are skewed and downright wrong; for example, his claim that Jihad, segregation and oppression of women are not endorsed in “original version and modern interpretations of Islam” has been proved false over and over again. Furthermore, he does fail to realize that Islamophobia is a propaganda term used for the benefit of Islamic organizations fighting for control of not only the US government, but society as well.

With the realization that Islamophobia doesn’t exist it leaves many of those organizations with one less weapon with which to attack us with. No longer are Muslims the victims and Westerners the guilty party. You no longer have to deal with the cries of “Islamophobia” and “hatred” because those claims don’t exist. Not everyone will accept it at first. Many Islamic figures and organizations will still hold on to it like a drowning sailor clings to a piece of wood, but it’ll be an empty insult. As long as you stand in the truth, you have nothing to fear.

Originally posted on the American Thinker and written by The Political Informer

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.

P.S. Check out the last part of the Civilization Jihad series entitled Civilization Jihad: Part 3: Muslims

Stephanie Cutter Approves of Rand Paul’s Filibuster

2013-03-12T17:32:00.002-07:00

It’s always interesting when a prominent figure from the opposing party gives a favorable view of a Republican. Especially when that prominent figure is Obama’s former campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter.

Not only did she give a favorable opinion on it, but she also said that that’s how the Senate should work, in an interview on MSNBC:

“We always tried to get filibusters going, where senators would go down and hold their ground and give speeches. We could never do it, because no senator wanted to go spend that much time on the senate floor. I was pleased to see that is what the senate is supposed to do… Someone is actually putting their money where their mouth is.”

It looks like Rand Paul’s filibuster influenced more people than he thought. This is what happens when you stand up for what you believe regardless of the consequences. Even the opposition respects you.

Here’s the video of Stephanie Cutter’s interview:

~ God bless

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.

P.S. Check out the last part of the Civilization Jihad series entitled Civilization Jihad: Part 3: Muslims

Christian Children Kidnapped by Muslim Traffickers to be Sold into Islamic Slavery

2013-03-10T13:50:00.001-07:00

Slavery might have been abolished in the United States and in many Western nations, but unfortunately, Islam never got the memo. But what should really disgust you is that this is a regular occurrence. In Bangladesh, over 55 children have been rescued from Islamic madrassas in this year alone. In Egypt, it’s a common occurrence, which has gotten worse as the “Arab spring” has continued.

A new report from George Washington University professor Michele Clark and Coptic rights activist Nada Ghaly has argued that thousands of young Coptic Christian girls in Egypt are the victim of kidnapping and forced servitude by Muslims in the North African country.

Women and girls who are found indicate they were befriended by friends or relatives of their kidnappers, or the kidnappers themselves, drugged and then taken in a well-organized plan.

Read the rest at The Muslim Issue...

Can the Afghan Military keep the bases we leave?

2013-03-07T05:40:00.001-08:00

As the 2014 withdrawal date for US forces in Afghanistan approaches, the military and government have to decide whether to hand over the numerous bases and checkpoints to the Afghan military or raze them. However, the real question is whether the Afghan military can successfully maintain the military bases that the US army will be leaving...

Continue reading the rest of my guest article at the American Thinker

Subscribe to The Political Informer by Email for new updates and information, and follow John-Pierre Maeli on Google+.