Wednesday, November 18, 2015

What France Can Learn from Israel in Confronting Islamist Terror

On 15 November 2015, an article appeared in the Middle East Forum under the above title. The article was written by Gregg Roman. It can be found on the following link

       I think the whole Western World could take some good advice from this article. It explains a common sense approach to the question of how to handle terrorism and how we can finally get rid of the fear that our whole civilization is going to the dogs because of the invasion of this most dangerous ideology. I believe you will be interested in this article.


No bird soars in a calm. Wilbur Wright


Ed and Nancy Manring

Monday, November 16, 2015

A World Turned Upside Down by Islamic Killers

The world has, again, been shocked to its bone marrow by the violent killing of innocent people in Paris at the hands of violent Muslim terrorists, acting at the behest of their religious penchant. They murdered 127 people and caused the hospitalization of 300 more (80 of whom are in critical condition at this time). As they were murdering people, they were heard to shout their Islamic killing theme, “Allahu akbar,” God is great! WHAT A RELIGION!!

The world has endured killing rampages carried out by so-called “Islamic extremists” ever since 9/11/2001, when they killed 3000 innocent Americans in New York. Since then, they have carried out mass murders on a train in Madrid, which took 191 lives in 2004, a killing spree in Mumbai in 2008 in which 164 people died, a killing extravaganza at the satirical publisher, Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket in Paris in January 2015; and, now, an organized mass murder in various parts of Paris. Saying all this ignores the mass casualties inflicted in the various wars precipitated by this religiously stimulated war in the Middle East.

These senseless attacks are becoming progressively sophisticated. This latest attack was not preceded by suspicious social media chatter, which was being carefully monitored by the French intelligence agency. This attack came literally out of the blue to an unsuspecting nation.

If we, in America, think this kind of attack will never come to our shores, I believe we are sadly mistaken. The response to the foreign attacks meted out by our feckless President and his followers is to offer sympathy and empty threats of retribution. No thought of military response ever comes from President Obama. He apparently thinks that wishing nothing more will happen is enough.

Mass killings and shootings seem to happen most frequently in schools, churches, at athletic events, and at any time and place where large crowds congregate.

It is my personal opinion that if the attendees at the various venues where all the killing took place had been armed with some handguns distributed through the crowd, perhaps the gunmen could have been cut down before mass casualties were incurred. However, in France, handgun possession is much more limited; and not everyone can qualify for concealed carry permits.
For my own part, I try to take my legal concealed handgun wherever I go. I think more people should protect themselves and their loved ones by doing the same. This is a very dangerous world we are trying to live in.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Free Speech Is In Real Danger at MIZZOU!

I’m sure most of the people in America are aware of the threat to free speech at United States universities. Also, there still is an attitude of racism that is all too prevalent. But…the “dialog” is dangerously threatening the exercise of free speech.

A good editorial has been written in the New York Times expressing the idea that even though differences exist between the political left and right, there is a need for reinstituting a spirit of listening in an understanding way to opposing views. I recommend that we, Americans, read that editorial, “MIZZOU, Yale, and Free Speech,” There is a book that pertains strongly to this discussion—Jonathan Haidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind.” In that book, Mr. Haidt shows the differences between the thinking of the liberal and the conservative; the book promotes a spirit of listening to the other side of a lively debate without hating one another.

There is also another problem that is being caused by uproar over social issues on American campuses—that is the loss of educational activity it spawns. In the 1960’s when the uproar over political views and the Viet Nam war were raging at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, I was very happy that I was a student at Colorado A&M. At least there, I could study and learn without wasting my time protesting.

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Disparate Impact—A Weapon of the Feds

The Federal government is fond of using “disparate impact” as an excuse for taking authority and decision-making away from states and municipalities in the name of political correctness and with the goal of increasing the strangle hold it has on those lesser polities.

The concept of disparate impact (unequal or incongruent effect) is the idea that some rules and regulations agreed upon by local government agencies cause undue harm and personal intrusion to various ethnic, economic, and religious groups.

In order to undo these intrusions, the Feds use the judicial organization to declare these rules (unacceptable to the Federal government) unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) because of the disparate impact the rules have on the target ethnic or religious group.

Examples of use of the disparate impact concept include the laws passed by states for voter identification, various zoning laws, employment, and housing regulations. The Feds often claim that regulations in these areas discriminate unfairly and disproportionately against persons or groups in certain protected classes. These classes of people include people with characteristics of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, and other traits, as well.  

All this disparate impact policy seems good and fair; but…the concept is being greatly overused. Of course, we must all remember that part of the function of the Supreme Court and the lesser courts of the land is to see that minority groups do not suffer the loss of their legitimate civil rights at the hands of an uncaring, selfish, and inconsiderate, majority. Nevertheless, I feel that MY rights and privileges are being disparately impacted by a “politically correct” judicial system that is seeing the concept of disparate impact as a tool to advance the pet schemes of a far-left, liberal, group of elite power managers and people-planners. I think that the principle of majority rule in our supposedly democratic society should have some impact of its own.

One example of a place where I strongly believe the idea of “disparate impact” has been abused is in the situation involving voter identification laws. I believe that photo-ID and other measures to ensure voter identification works no “disparate impact” on anyone. All legitimate voters in the United States can obtain state-issued ID cards without any difficulty. To declare that minority people cannot obtain ID cards easily is not true. I strongly suspect that those who would oppose voter ID laws are those who would like to have many Latino votes, even if those votes were cast by ineligible voters.

Another area where the idea of “disparate impact” has been abused is in the situation of same-sex marriage. If same-sex people want to live together, then, they can do so. But, to denigrate the time-tested institution of marriage because of the wishes of a very small minority of Americans is just foolish and extremely unfair to a large majority of us who revere marriage as the cornerstone of a healthy society.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

How to Pick Out a President

My wife, Nancy, is a guest writer on this blog.
We should not pick a President on the following characteristics:
v  A sense of humor and a likeable smile. (Remember we did that last time.)

v  Arrogance and pride are not good qualities in a president. Those qualities lead to bad decisions.

v  A candidate whose plans are so broad they have no specific thoughts. Did we ever ask what change Obama would bring or what hope?

v  A candidate who would lead us down a dark path such as socialism. We went down that path with Marx about 100 years ago.  Lenin and Stalin who championed that path brought death and poverty to their people. Stalin killed an estimated 10,000,000 people.

What to look for:
v  A candidate should be one who tells the truth, not one who is a known liar or makes promises so big that what they say cannot possibly happen. (Al Gore said he invented the internet and was going to cure cancer during his presidency.)

v  A candidate should be one who can get along with other people, because, when president, he/she will need to work with Congress and other politicians. It is beneficial to the whole nation for the leader to be able to consider other people’s views.

v  A candidate should be one who has specific plans for his/her presidency, and who has some administrative experience of how to get it done.  He/she should have a plan on how to apply it.

v  A candidate should knows what the real issues are and where our danger or strength lies.

v  Most important: a candidate should know God and be willing lead us into godly ways, because our most recent path has been toward sin and evil.



Thursday, September 17, 2015

Has America Become More Liberal?

On June 29, 1915, the New York Times ran a series of articles on the subject of this blog post. Below are some excerpts from two of the authors: Akhil Amar and Russell Moore.

America and its Constitution have been moving leftward from the founding to the present.

After ousting a hereditary monarch and an unelected Parliament, revolutionaries in the 1770s initially crafted the Articles of Confederation, a pact that emphasized states’ rights, almost to the exclusion of government by a central staff. A decade later, Americans tossed that overboard to create a liberal, egalitarian national government featuring far more central power to tax and regulate and far more democracy.
Reforms included an elected House, and an end to religious qualifications, and property qualifications for federal public service — all of which came from a stunning series of votes across the continent permitting unprecedented political participation and extraordinary free speech. A Bill of Rights, demanded by the populace, quickly supplemented the original plan, promising a range of liberal rights including free expression, religious equality and safeguards for criminal defendants.

Slavery and racism were the snakes in this Edenic garden, and in the 1860s a new generation of liberal reformers — self-described radical Republicans — arose to right old wrongs and move the Constitution further left. Three Reconstruction amendments promised racial equality, broader liberty and enhanced federal power to protect both. A half-century later, another generation of liberal reformers — self-described progressives — added another cluster of amendments that further expanded federal power, democratized and nationalized the Senate, enfranchised women and openly endorsed redistributive taxation.
A half century after that, in the 1960s, yet another generation of liberal reformers added another cluster of liberal amendments, extending democracy to the poor, the young and the District of Columbia (a largely black city). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  As these mid-century amendments were unfolding, the Warren Court revolutionized judicial doctrine by bringing it into alignment with a generally liberal Constitution.

The current era — the Age of Barack Obama and Anthony Kennedy — fits into a larger pattern. Barack Obama, a Black, left-of-center lawyer from Illinois was elected and re-elected in a manner that redeemed the deepest spirit of the 15th Amendment (black suffrage) and the 19th Amendment (women suffrage).
A majority of white men voted against Obama, but thanks to the earlier leftist amendments that allowed others to vote, Obama won, and two of his nominees sit on the current Supreme Court. Mainstream Protestants no longer dominate America’s highest offices. (Anthony Kennedy is a Catholic, as are five other justices; the other three are Jewish.) Obamacare is a culmination of the project of earlier constitutional progressives, who championed redistributive federal policies.

Does this all mean that America has permanently adopted a liberalism that is “cast in concrete?” Are we forever destined to more and more progressivism in government and “political correctness?”
History doesn’t work in the linear way conservatives fear that it will, forever changing the way we live. The 1960s brought real change in American culture in some ways good and in some ways bad, but it hardly brought the dawning of the Age of Aquarius the counter-culture expected. The Reagan years likewise brought about some lasting changes but it did not usher in the theocracy of television evangelists some hysterical progressives claimed was coming. Cultural revolutions tend to overreach, and generations tend to swing back and forth on cultural issues.

As a social conservative, I am hopeful because I think much of the culture — especially as it relates to the sexual revolution — is simply unsustainable. These developments are unsustainable because many of them are rooted in a view of human nature that often ignores biology, history and tradition as well as moral theology.

Moreover, a view of progress that ignores the limits of human nature and civilization often leads to the sort of excessive pride or arrogance that overreaches and self-contradicts.

Social conservatives must recognize the bend of the present culture but not over-interpret it as the bend of history itself. We must articulate why we believe, for instance, that children need both a mother and a father and why laissez-faire sexuality hurts people, families and communities. But we must do so by seeking to persuade those who fundamentally disagree with us, not just by screaming at them. And we must keep a witness going for future generations who may well be damaged by the choices of their parents. They may be seeking a different, more ancient, path.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The Abortion Industry Reaches a New Low in Ethical Behavior

Certain institutions in our country have reached a new moral low in basic integrity. The recent revelation of the sale of baby body parts by Planned Parenthood is absolutely scathing to my conscience. I just cannot imagine how a mother can have her unborn baby dismembered, in the first place; but, then, extracting parts of the innocent baby’s body and selling them at the hands of profit-seeking intermediaries is the epitome of blatant evil! How much farther can human morals sink?

Two videos have been released of senior Planned Parenthood abortion executives explaining in lurid detail, while chomping on salad and wine, how Planned Parenthood abortionists “crush” babies, using a “less crunchy” method of abortion in order to avoid harming organs destined for sale.

It’s despicable.

Yet, in response to the natural backlash of the American people, Planned Parenthood – the largest abortion business in America – has happily admitted it conducts this gruesome, inhuman practice.  It claims it is following “the highest ethical and legal standards.”
Planned Parenthood claims that is does not “profit in any way” from this grotesque business practice.  In fact, Planned Parenthood’s first response to the videos was to assert, “There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for…Planned Parenthood.” Does anyone in their right mind believe that Planned Parenthood is transferring these body parts to researchers around the country out of the goodness of their hearts?

New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and apparently admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

The footage shockingly depicts the top medical official at the Planned Parenthood corporation munching on her salad while she discusses the sale of body parts of unborn children victimized by abortions. She brazenly describes how the heads of unborn babies killed in abortions command top dollar.
For my readers in Colorado, Colorado Citizens For Life reported on July 15, 2015 that on January 10, 2013, Colorado State University purchased fetal body parts from Planned Parenthood's flagship abortion facility in San Jose, California via a company called StemExpress.  In total, nine specimens were harvested from eight different aborted babies killed in abortions at that Planned Parenthood clinic and the purchase order reveals CSU bought two body parts, including an aborted baby’s liver.

At the time, Stem Express paid Planned Parenthood $50 per specimen, which means that in one day they received $450. Additionally, StemExpress harvested body parts from Planned Parenthood facilities in Fresno, Sacramento, and Stockton.

Planned Parenthood performs about 40% of the abortions done in the United States annually. According to Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter, 60%-70% of the organization’s patients agree to have their babies’ body parts harvested. Dr. Deborah Nucatola estimates that the body parts sell for about $30-$100 each. Those figures indicate that Planned Parenthood probably brings in about $23 million/year selling baby body parts.
Dr. Nucatola, the first planned Parenthood doctor caught arranging for the sale of aborted baby body parts not only makes a big salary from the abortion corporation, a new report from the Daily Caller indicates she runs a consulting business on the side. Via that consulting firm, Dr. Nucatola made another $207,000 in 2007, according to IRS records.

New information is coming to light about the amount of money Nucatola makes. As the Daily Caller reports, Nucatola makes a lucrative amount of money from the abortion giant via her salary (which is likely in the $150,000-$250,000 range), but also additional money from Planned Parenthood on the side as a consultant.

Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles paid Nucatola $203,180 as an independent contractor through Imagyn, according to its 2007 IRS 990 form. Nucatola’s LinkedIn profile indicates that she was medical director at Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo at the time.

In summary of this horrendous market for baby body parts, I quote the statement made by Brit Hume on FOX NEWS Special Report on 19 July 2015,

“Whatever comes of the revelations about Planned Parenthood and its participation in the traffic in fetal body parts, those revelations will have achieved one thing, they have parted the veil of antiseptic tidiness behind which the abortion industry has so long operated. The sight of the senior Planned Parenthood official and doctor, to boot, discussing the market for fetal body parts in between bites of salad and sips of wine was stomach turning. That’s because it laid bare the essential brutal nature of abortion. Let’s be blunt. Abortion involves the extraction and killing of a human life. Within a couple weeks of the beginning of a pregnancy, the baby has a beating heart. Five weeks in, its hands and legs begin to grow. It is these tiny creatures and ones that are far more developed that are pulled from a mother’s womb and crushed with forceps. Oh, but so carefully lest body parts, which can later be sold and preserved are not damaged. This gruesome procedure shows the extent to which we, as a people have been anesthetized by the estimated 55 million abortions since the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to that procedure 42 years ago.

“Will we, as a nation come to look upon that decision and what it has done to us, not to mention the 55 million dead with horror and regret. One can only hope we will.”