1 - 9
As soon as these people cross the border from Guatemala into Mexico they are no longer in danger of violence from their home countries of Honduras, El Salvador, etc. At that point they are not running from violence, they are running to a country whose president won't send them back.
Impeaching Obama would feel good, but it is politically stupid. Recall the impeachment effort against Clinton - it played into the hands of the Democrats. So would an impeachment effort against Obama. The Democrats would dearly love the Republicans to impeach Obama. It would backfire bigtime. No, let's let Obama continue to fail. Yes, two more years of Obama will hurt this country. But come 2016, the Republicans could win the presidency, the Senate and the House. That's the moment when things will begin to turn around. Until then, let the Dems stew in Obama's stinking juices.
In response to:

The Paranoids are Back

sablebrush5 Wrote: Jun 28, 2014 5:58 PM
Mr. Greenberg does not address the principal objection to Common Core - it represents the federal takeover of what is taught and what is not taught in schools. Is it wise to change our education system so that federal bureaucrats make these decisions or is it a better path to allow each local community to make those decisions? Where is the evidence that the federal takeover of anything results in improvement? The problem in education is not lack of federal guidance from D.C. The problem is that school boards and school "experts" have control of the tax money dedicated for education. Instead, we should put the parents in control of where the money goes by instituting a voucher system in which each parent decides where their child will go to school and the voucher goes to that school. This introduces competiton into the system. As long as schools are monopolies they will continue to stagnate. With competition, they will change and change fast for the better.
In response to:

Do You Hate the President?

sablebrush5 Wrote: Mar 26, 2014 1:53 AM
Hate him? Of course not. He's intelligent, likable, has a good sense of humor, extremely well-educated, a great father, husband and family man, good-looking and charming... and he's our worst president since WWII. It's as though a sophomore poli-sci major at U.C. Berkeley all of the sudden became the president. His one great accomplishment is he is driving a stake through the heart of big-government liberalism. After eight years of Obama-ism, health-care programs put together by "experts" and bureaucrats, $800 billion dollar stimulus programs put together by "experts" and bureaucrats, piles upon piles of regulations put together by "experts" and bureaucrats has gotten us what? A huge mess. A mess so enormous and damaging that the American people will be dying to get rid of it. A mess so stark and obvious, even the the apparent inevitability of a Hillary presidency which will be seen as Obama-ism "lite" will fail miserably and we will be rid of Obama-ism, Hillary-ism and, at last, Bubba-ism.
In response to:

Pope Francis Threatens Hell -- Hooray!

sablebrush5 Wrote: Mar 26, 2014 12:45 AM
Is it possible that the Imams and higher-ups in Islam don't specifically condemn terrorist organizations for their killing of "innocent" people because those innocent people are not really innocent? That is, they are outside the faith of Islam and, as such, they are infidels. Mohammed himself condemns all infidels who consciously choose not to convert to Islam as "enemies" of Islam. Therefore the terrorists are doing Allah's work - they are getting rid of the enemies of Islam.
In response to:

Muslims Need to Confront Muslim Evil

sablebrush5 Wrote: Sep 24, 2013 9:14 PM
Prager's last sentence is the key: ... "perhaps not that many Muslim religious leaders do believe that Muslim terrorists are going to hell." Unfortunately, most Muslims understand that what the terrorists are doing - killing infidels - is something Mohammed himself calls for in Islamic writings. It is made very clear that it is the duty of all Muslims to convert infidels to Islam. If they refuse, they must pay a special tax. If they refuse to pay the special tax, they must be executed. Terrorism is simply a radical form of obeying Mohammed's wishes by skipping the proselytising and the tax and going right to the execution. To a Muslim, killing infidels is perhaps wrong, but understandable.
In response to:

Israel's Reviled Strategic Wisdom

sablebrush5 Wrote: Jul 06, 2013 10:08 PM
Caroline Glick, as usual, is correct in her assessment of Egypt and the muslim world in general. Muslims despise America, Israel, the West and who can blame them? This hatred of everything non-Muslim follows from the writings of their Prophet in the Koran. We Americans find it hard to accept that 1 billion muslims can feel this way, but it's true. That hatred is accelerated by the enormous envy felt by muslims who abhor the fact that they are so backward compared to the West. Obama and his people can't face this fact either and, as a result, our foreign policy makes no sense. Our challenge today is not radical muslims, but Islam itself. We have to face the fact that this religion is intolerant, aggressive, and is headed back to the 7th century. We must oppose it even if that means militarily. But as long as Obama sits in the White House, we will continue to play these unrealistic games of, "How can we appease the Muslim world?"
Gay marriage is not really about marriage. At most, some 10% to 15% of gays will marry. No, the underlying and fundamental significance of same-sex marriage is the normalization of homosexuality. By legalizing gay marriage nationwide (eventually?), the stigma that attached to homosexuality is removed. Homosexuality is then lifted up to rest on the same plane with heterosexualtiy. The positive consequence to this is that it will mitigate the discrimination and outright violence that gay people have suffered since the caveman days. The negative consequences will be several. The first will be the violence done to the truth. Homosexuality is clearly a genetic mistake. It makes no sense from a survival of the species point of view, easily the most fundamental law of nature. Another negative consequence will be the marginalization of all the major religions that view homosexuality as a sin. Catholics, many Jews, Baptists, Muslims and many others will become outcasts of the cultural elite. It may even get to the point where to criticize gay behavior will be a crime. It's already a no-no and violates speech codes on university campuses. Gay marriage is a mistake that's going to have unintended and many unforeseen consequences that will not be healthy to our society as a whole. Polygamy, for example, is next. In 20 of 30 years polygamy will be legal. One man will marry five women. One woman will marry 10 guys. (one Mormon leader in the 19th century married 50 women.) At that point marriage will have become a farce and a sad joke.
Gays already have the right to marry. They can marry anyone they want as long as they get "married." That is, unite with someone of the opposite sex. What gay people want is not an extension of the right to marry that is denied them - the right to marry is already everyone's right. What they seek is to change the definition of "marriage." They want the larger society to agree with them that "marriage" should mean the union of anyone with anyone, as long as they love each other and want to commit to each other. The underlying thrust of the gay movement is, then, not so much about marriage - most gays don't really care to get married - so much as it is a movement to normalize homosexuality.
1 - 9