RenewAmerica and Mormonism

As a highly concerned citizen who strongly believes that America’s strength is directly proportionate to her commitment to traditional values, I am always on the lookout for organizations that support this premise.  I was pleased to stumble upon a website a few weeks ago called “RenewAmerica.”  I read its “About” page and felt that I had just found a site I certainly would return to often. This is a segment from their “About” page:

RenewAmerica is a grassroots organization that supports the self-evident truths found in the Declaration of Independence, and their faithful application through upholding the U.S. Constitution, as written. Its purpose is to thoughtfully and courageously advance the cause of our nation's Founders.

The organization is for ALL people who consider themselves loyal Americans. It has no philosophy, image, or agenda beyond this one unifying premise: America must return to its founding principles if it is to survive.

RenewAmerica is thus nonpartisan and nondenominational.

Because RenewAmerica is GRASSROOTS at heart, it remains fundamentally independent, creative, and energetic in pursuing its distinctive agenda in the cause of strengthening America. We welcome your creative energy in this vital cause.

Please join with us. We need your strength.

This seems like a wonderful cause and I was anxious to learn more.  However, as I looked through the articles, I was alarmed to discover the amount of anti-Mormon sentiment on this site.  I read several articles that sharply criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Many of these contain misunderstandings about our doctrine and the criticisms directed toward my faith seem to flow mostly as a result of those misunderstandings.  This certainly is common from those who come from a different doctrinal point of view.  I will dedicate a future post to providing further explanation to some of the views expressed on their site.

However, I was surprised to see such an animosity about a religion from an organization that claims to be interested in maintaining a non-denominational perspective.  Furthermore, I found multiple articles on the site defending religious liberty.  I concur that religious liberty is the backbone of a strong America and one of our most important and precious founding principles.  However, to espouse such a philosophy and then spend significant time and energy strenuously opposing one particular religion seems counterintuitive.  It does not further their agenda in any way and only creates inter-faith animosity.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I certainly am in a prime position to take offense, and so I recognize that may be a fair criticism of my criticism.  However, I think the main point to keep in mind is that I am as much as anyone in this country a strong supporter of a robust, religious, self-sufficient citizenry who cherishes our founding principles. Shouldn’t RenewAmerica be inviting me and others like me into their cause instead of working to disparage our religion?

See more at RenewAmerica.com

The BSA Decision - A Mormon's Perspective

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter referred to as The Church or The Church of Jesus Christ), I have been watching the process the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been going through the past few weeks. The Church has a century-long relationship with the BSA and how they voted could affect that relationship. As a strong conservative who is actively involved in politics, I have been concerned about the pressure that has been placed on the BSA, and other organizations, to violate their religiously-protected freedoms to endorse a way of life not consistent with their beliefs.

The Boy Scouts issued the following statement:

"For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, with a focus on working together to deliver the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

"Based on growing input from within the Scouting family, the BSA leadership chose to conduct an additional review of the organization's long-standing membership policy and its impact on Scouting's mission. This review created an outpouring of feedback from the Scouting family and the American public, from both those who agree with the current policy and those who support a change. 

"Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America's National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote. 

"This policy change is effective Jan. 1, 2014, allowing the Boy Scouts of America the transition time needed to communicate and implement this policy to its approximately 116,000 Scouting units. 

"The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue. As the National Executive Committee just completed a lengthy review process, there are no plans for further review on this matter. 

"While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting. Going forward, our Scouting family will continue to focus on reaching and serving youth in order to help them grow into good, strong citizens. America's youth need Scouting, and by focusing on the goals that unite us, we can continue to accomplish incredible things for young people and the communities we serve."

What I read as I reviewed this message was that 1) boys are better when Scouting and 2) the behavior of scouts will remain the same. 

The Church of Jesus Christ released a statement regarding the changes of the BSA:

For the past 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong relationship with Boy Scouts of America, based on our mutual interest in helping boys and young men understand and live their duty to God and develop upright moral behavior. As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world. 

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest. 

These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men. 

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,” which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.  

Many have expressed concern over this decision. Others have expressed disbelief that the Church of Jesus Christ would support the BSA - saying it has lost its way or is pandering. I would argue that neither of these is the case. As a church, "'young men … who agree to abide by Church standards' are 'welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate.'" It sounds as though the Boy Scouts' policy change is actually more in line with the existing policy of the Church. 

The doctrines of the Church help us to understand that we have a Heavenly Father who is concerned for the welfare of His children. He wants us all to have an opportunity to make it back to His presence. During His ministry, the Lord was clear during His time on earth in telling all to "come unto me." When I separate politics from religion, I understand this decision.

Politically, however, it makes me nervous. I know that gay rights activists are likely cheering this decision and find it as a win. I believe the BSA entered into this decision-making process from outside pressure it was receiving. While I believe each private organization has a right and obligation to set the terms of its membership, it does concern me that that this process appeared to be made under pressure. But just because a process begins under pressure does not mean the outcome is made by that same pressure. The BSA had to evaluate their value system and assess if their policies reflected that. By making the decision they did, I believe they are saying they want all young men to have an opportunity for growth is a value-rich environment. Young men (and women) make powerful decisions that will affect the rest of their lives starting at an early age. By allowing young men to participate in uplifting activities where their confidence is strengthened and positive virtues are reinforced, it increases positive decision-making down the road.

Moving forward, the Boy Scouts have a lot of decisions they will need to make as a result of this decision. This includes if they choose to make changes to the requirements and activities. They will also likely be reevaluating their decision regarding gay leadership. The GLAAD spokesman stated, "Today's vote is a significant victory for gay youth across the nation and a clear indication that the Boy Scouts' ban on gay adult leaders will also inevitably end." The Boy Scouts organization will have to evaluate that as well. 

Sometimes, political decisions have an all-or-nothing flavor to them. You don't want to give an inch lest the other side take a mile or seven. In this case, a private organization has made a decision to redefine its membership. While there was political pressure to do so, this decision was made by the BSA. This process is challenging the beliefs of many strong, valiant Christians who are striving to make decisions, personally and politically, that uphold their value system. Each individual will need to evaluate if their personal value system, not just political beliefs, allow them to continue in their membership or affiliation with the Boy Scouts. 

**Please note, the views expressed in this article belong to this author alone and may not necessarily reflect those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not speak for the Church. Click here for more information on the Church's stance.**

LDS Church Responds to Boy Scout Vote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has responded to the Boy Scout vote on children who identify as homosexual:

For the past 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong relationship with Boy Scouts of America, based on our mutual interest in helping boys and young men understand and live their duty to God and develop upright moral behavior. As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world.  

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.  

These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.                

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,” which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

As stated earlier on this site, I think this is the right decision for the reasons stated in the statement by the church.

The Connection Between Drug Use and Criminal Behavior: There Are No Victimless Crimes

There is no such thing as a victim-less crime. Let me say this again - there is no such thing as a victim-less crime and that includes drug use. The U.S. government released data stating that 80% of those arrested for crimes tested positive for an illegal substance, most commonly marijuana. Up to 68% of those in prison are dependent on drugs, according to a 2002 study. Up to 60% of those that committed crimes were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offense.

The recent study released the following statistics:
- 80% of those arrested tested positive for an illegal substance
- Marijuana most common drug offenders tested positive for
- "Chicago also had the highest overall positive test results, with 86 percent of the men found to have at least one drug in their bloodstreams."

Alcohol, especially used by those under the age of 21, leads to violent crime as well:

• Each year, more than 600,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.

• 95% of all violent crime on college campuses involves the use of alcohol by the assailant, victim or both.

• 90% of acquaintance rape and sexual assault on college campuses involves the use of alcohol by the assailant, victim or both.

• Every day, 36 people die, and approximately 700 are injured, in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver.  Drinking and drugged driving is the number one cause of death, injury and disability of young people under the age of 21. (Statistics on Alcohol use and crime.)

The connection between drug use and criminal behavior is clear. And this does not even bring into play the role of gangs and drug cartels and violence on the other side of the border.

During his last presidential campaign, Libertarian Ron Paul was known to discuss drug use as a victim-less crime. Those who know someone who is dealing with drug addiction know this is not the case. Besides the personal path of destruction that drug use leads to, other criminal involvement is an imminent part of drug use. Theft, fraud, assault, and robbery are typical other crimes associated with drug possession.

Part 1 of this problem is recognizing that drug use is a problem and leads to other criminal behaviors. Part 2 is what to do about it.

Obama's "Leadership"

(SOURCE)

Tornado Rips Through Oklahoma

What heartbreaking loss occurred in Oklahoma today. Tornadoes have devastated Moore, Oklahoma. Over 50 people have died - 24 of which are children. Many are unaccounted for. The recovery efforts will continue through the night. Click here to find out how to support the ongoing efforts. Here for information on shelters and missing persons. Here for a reminder of hope.

Oklahoma Tornados

Our hearts and prayers go to the victims of the devastating tornados in Oklahoma.

Supreme Court To Hear Case On Prayer At Council Meetings

From ReligiousClause.blogspot.com:

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to weigh in on the extensively litigated issue of opening city council meetings with prayer.  It granted certiorari in Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway, (Docket No. 12-696, cert. granted 5/20/2013). (Order List). In the case, the 2nd Circuit created an extremely fact-dependent test for determining the constitutionality of opening meetings of legislative bodies (here the town board) with prayer. It concluded that in this case, "an objective, reasonable person would believe that the town’s prayer practice had the effect of affiliating the town with Christianity." (See prior posting.) Scotus Blog's case page has links to all the certiorari stage briefs. The town's petition for certiorari framed the question presented as: "Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a legislative prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity."

This is going to be very interesting and will set a profound precedent.  Too bad we have to wait until next year.

Obama's Whereabouts During Benghazi - "Irrelevant"

From my article on DaTechGuy: "In reading the transcript from Chris Wallace’s interview with Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer, it becomes evident that the White House doesn’t understand one basic concept – they report to American citizens. They are accountable to us. Unfortunately for all individuals, Obama was hired by the American people and as such, it is not outlandish for him to be accountable for his whereabouts on the night of 9/11/12 during the Benghazi attacks. This interview reminds me of the shiftiness during the Monica Lewinsky scandal." (LINK)



Isn't that enraging? So the aid doesn't know where Obama was or is hiding where Obama was. Either way, he couldn't answer the question and blamed Republicans. Part of being in office is being accountable to the public. It's built into your job. Where is the transparency promised?

Transcript below:
WALLACE: let's turn to benghazi. he had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. the next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended. question, what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER:  the president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end. this is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. i recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. there's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. the question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn't happen again? congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability review board. when we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there's inherent risk. we need to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: with all due respect, you didn't answer my question. what did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER:  kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: he didn't talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. he didn't talk to the secretary of defense, he didn't talk to chiefs. the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER:  his national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  he was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  i don't know what room he was in that night. that's a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: well --

PFEIFFER:  the premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. the accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. it's a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLCE: here's the point, though, the ambassador goes missing, the first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. four americans, including the ambassador, are killed. dozens of americans are in jeopardy. the president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. no forces are deployed. where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER:  this has been tested to by --

WALLACE: well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the --

PFEIFFER:  the suggestion of your question that somehow the president --

WALLACE: i just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER:  the assertions from republicans that the president didn't take action is offensive. there's no evidence to support it.

WALLACE: i'm simply asking a question. where was he? what did he do? how did he respond in who told him you can't deploy forces and what was his president?

PFEIFFER:  the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.

IRS Probed Pro-Life Group About Prayers??

Directly taken from Washingtonexaminer.com:

During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.

“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’" Schock declared.

“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”

“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.

After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn't comment on the specific case, it would "surprise him" if that question was asked.

The report comes from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm for religious liberty.

From their report:

Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.

Obama Tries To Rewrite History On Libya - Earns 4 Pinnochios

More from Breitbart.com:

Monday, during his appearance before the media with British Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama was again caught  lying to cover up his lying and covering-up in the aftermath of a successful terror attack in Libya that cost four American lives. Obama actually claimed before the world that, “The day after [Libya] happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
That is a bald-faced lie. In fact it is such a bald-faced lie that Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler awarded the President the full-boat of four Pinnochios:
[T]he president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
The lying from this Administration about Libya never stops. And it is not some mid-level administration official doing the lying, nor is it some political flak.
The President is doing the lying and doing so before all of the media in the most brazen and craven way imaginable.

The Office Finale Tonight!

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the important events of our day but I can't wait for The Office finale tonight!! This last season has rehooked me into the Pam/Jim story line ..it's been great. I have had a crush on John Krasinski for almost a decade. The Office said goodbye to Steve Carell, one of the main characters, last season. This season, we say goodbye to all of The Office cast. The festivities start tonight at 7pm CST with a look back on the series and the finale is at 8 pm CST. Tune it to NBC! Also, in a funny turn of events, Quill, a shoot off of Staples, is going to begin selling Dunder Mifflin paper.

White House Misled Americans On Benghazi?

Take directly from The Weekly Standard:

Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims

Stephen F. Hayes

May 16, 2013 12:09 AM

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.
The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.
That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.
“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)
Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true.
Another CIA email, this one a draft of a message for CIA director David Petraeus, noted that the talking points process had “run into major problems,” in part because of the “major concerns” raised by the State Department. That same email reported that the issues would be revisited at the Deputies Committee meeting on Saturday morning.
Elsewhere, CIA officials seemed to understand that the document had been stripped of most of its content. An email from an official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, the office that drafted the original version of the talking points, signed off on the final version but seemed to understand that the new version wouldn’t please those who had requested it. “They are fine with me,” this CIA official wrote. “But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] won’t like them. :-)”
When Petraeus received the rewritten talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer. But he declined to put up a fight.  
The documents answer some questions and raise many others. Did Hillary Clinton have any role in the efforts of State Department staffers to push for the many substantive revisions to the talking points? Clinton, who testified that she was a hands-on part of the State Department’s response to the attacks, has claimed she had nothing to do with the talking points.
And what about the administration’s claims that State and White House officials weren’t involved with substantive edits? In one email, Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”
In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”

Lack of Leadership Catching Up With Obama

My article on Datechguyblog.com:

What a week this has been in the MSM! Between Benghazi hearings, the enormous Department of Justice power grab, and the IRS targeting conservative groups, one thing has become clearly apparent: Obama is not a leader. The government is falling apart under his command. While many may argue this could be a good thing, I think what we are seeing is a lack of accountability and multiple ethical violations piling up. One after another, we are obtaining evidence that when Obama said transparency, he really meant cloaked scandal. When he talked of helping the American public, he was speaking of his donors. And when we were promised that Obamacare was the answer, it gives us a pretty good idea of what the question was (hint: what's the next poorly run federal governmental entity?) 

As many of you, I was heartbroken when Mitt Romney lost his bid for presidency. What a different world this would be! One of the statements my father made was that Obama would have to live with the consequences of his poor leadership. He has blamed Bush for 5 years. At some point, that song and dance has an end. Now, the scandals are piling up. With the recent AP debacle, hopefully, even the media can be mad enough to get on board and report what is happening in the White House instead of burying stories. 

What's unfortunate, is that in all the scandal, real lives have been impacted. Real lives in Benghazi. Real people targeted and impacted by the IRS. Real sources compromised. Lives are affected by each of Obama's blunders.

Real Men Don't Support Redistribution of Wealth

From the DailyCaller.com:

Men’s brawn may be an indicator of their attitudes on economic redistribution, a new study finds.
Research published Wednesday in Psychological Science finds that men with strong upper-bodies tend to be more opposed to economic redistribution than their weak armed counter parts.

A possible explanation is that before the formalized government and legal system, disputes were solved through fighting and strength — causing the researchers to wonder if strength could be a proxy for political attitudes.

“While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has — in a sense — always been with our species,” said Michael Bang Petersen of Aarhus University, one of the primary researchers.

To determine the relationship between men’s strength and political persuasion, the researchers measured bicep sizes, and compared it to socioeconomic status and support for redistribution, collecting information from hundreds of people in the U.S., as well as Argentina and Denmark.

“Despite the fact that the United States, Denmark and Argentina have very different welfare systems, we still see that — at the psychological level — individuals reason about welfare redistribution in the same way,” Petersen said.