Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Monday, April 13, 2015

Friday, April 03, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-04-02 at 4.23.35 PM

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst with GOP Committeewoman Demetra DeMonte and husband Tony

By Nancy Thorner – 

CHICAGO –  Last Saturday, the Chicago-based conservative group Family PAC Federal hosted newly-elected U.S. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. The group, chaired by John McEnroe,has raised nearly $1 million for federal candidates.

Preferring not to speak behind a podium, using a hand-held microphone Senator Joni Ernst appeared humble and sincere. She admitted that her life has been quite a journey from where she is now from where she came from.

Senator Ernst was born in Southwest Iowa, a very sparsely populated area of Iowa, on a small family farm.  She has an older brother and a younger sister. They all pitched in with the chores, which was part of life when growing up in rural Iowa. Her father worked hard and was determined to provide for his family.  But when farming hit a rough patch, Jodi’s dad purchased a bulldozer and did construction work on the side.  This too became a family endeavor. Through it all Jodi was taught the value of hard work, the determination to see things through, and the value of the dollar.

Screen Shot 2015-04-02 at 4.27.48 PM  Screen Shot 2015-04-02 at 4.29.12 PM

Senator Ernst (L) and Family PAC’s Executive Director Paul Caprio (R)

After high school Jodi Ernst went to Iowa State University.  While in college Ernst became an exchange student, traveling to Ukraine with 17 other students to  spend several weeks on a Ukrainian collective farm.  In the evening talk sessions were held, but instead of the conversation centering around agriculture, Joni and her fellow college students were asked questions, such as:  1) What is it like to be an American?, 2) what type of government does America have?, and 3) How was your government formed?

Jodi Ernst’s Ukrainian student exchange trip changed the direction of her life. Driven to to do something more for her country, Jodi joined the ROTC and was later deployed to the Middle East for 14 months, where during 2003 and 2004 she participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 1168th Transportation Company of the Iowa National Guard, commanded by Jodi Ernst, drove across Kuwait and southern Iraq transporting materials from May to August 2003.

Later in its deployment the Iowa unit served as a protection detail outside Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.  As there were no armored vehicles at the time, it was fortunate that the unit had no IDs to contend with.  Prayer, however, was essential to Jodi and her fellow deployed Iowa National Guardsmen.  Of the150 deployed to the Middle East, all came back home.  The fact that all 150 came home safe and sound was a significance and important event in Jodi’s life.

Arriving home from deployment, Jodi Ernst became aware of challenges that existed in her home county of Montgomery, Iowa.  Accepting a political challenge, Jodi Ernst ran and won her bid for a seat in the Iowa Senate, which led directly to her Iowa U.S. Senate victory in 2014.  While serving in the Iowa state senate Jodi observed that a level of respect must be present among elected members in order for an effective and open level of communication to exist.

Joni Ernst as a newly-elected Iowa senator

A show of respect by other U.S. senators was apparent when Senator Jodi Ernst, while yet in her first month of serving as a newly elected senator from Iowa, was chosen to give the Republican response to President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union Address. Sporting camouflage high-heels, Ernst referred to herself as “a soldier” in the second line of her speech. Senator Jodi Ernst’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address can heard here.

Being a pro-life candidate is a bedrock position for Senator Ernst.  Informed that her pro-life position would sink her candidacy, Ernst stood by her values.  Yet Joni Ernst was elected by an amazing majority of 8-1/2 points over her Democrat challenger.  In the Senate Joni serves on the Values Action Team with Republicans Tim Scott, Roy Blunt, and James Lankford.  Joni’s favorite topic to bring up at meetings is the life issue.

Speaking about her first 90 days as a U.S. senator, Senator Ernst related what a remarkable journey it has been. Referring to the Republican-led U.S. Senate approved 2016 budget blueprint that was finally enacted at 3:00 a.m. on Friday, March 27th, after much jockeying and compromise, Senator Ernst applauded the legislation as an important Senate achievement.

As remarked by Senator Ernst: “It was the first time in seven years that a budget was passed by the Senate.”  It has been reported that the Senate legislation will balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes, trim trillions of spending dollars, and repeal “Obamacare.” Now the House and the Senate need to reconcile the differences that exist in their bills.

The House of Representatives approved its own budget version on Wednesday, March 25, a nearly $3.8 trillion plan which eliminates the federal deficit in nine years and slashes $5.5 trillion in spending over a decade.  Senator Ernst spoke of an effort made by senators to raise military spending, but because the sequester caps are still in place for the Department of Defense, military spending can’t be increased as long as the caps are in effect.

Questions directed to Senator Ernst were limited because of her scheduled flight back to Iowa:

Question 1:  Our debt is $18 trillion, yet it’s more like $120 trillion.  Why don’t we hear more about our massive debt level and what will be done about it?

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are now on auto pilot.  They are not budgeted.  This must change.  Disability payments have only two more years to go before the system is broken.  Hard decisions lie ahead if programs are to be funded. 

Question 2:  What do you think of the League of Women Voters?

Don’t worry about the group.  To Hillary it’s not enough to just be a woman.  You also have to care about women’s issues.  But don’t most women care a lot about education for their children, jobs and the economy, national security, and getting rid of Obamacare?  Senator Ernst linked the appeal of the League of Women’s Voters to those voters who accept there is a war on women.

A plaque was presented by Anthony “Tony” Nasharr of Wounded Heroes Foundation Inc. to Senator Jodi Ernst to honor her military service and dedication to country.

Paul Caprio thanked all for attending the event, offering this final remark, “This is a great country that can defeat history.”

Monday, March 30, 2015

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Hands

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

David L. Goetsch in his book, “Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education”, sees multiculturalism as the leftist code for a worldview that seeks the destruction of Christianity and traditional American values.  Although everyone and everything is supposed to be equal, universal equality is preached but not actually believed. Multicultural elitists not only reject the values of those who pay their salaries, they do everything in their power to subvert their values.  Elitists in academia go beyond just advocating multiculturalism, they worship at the altar of this misguided, socially cancerous worldview.

Professor Williams explained this multicultural hypocrisy in a recent column entitled “Multiculturalism, a cancer on Western society”:

“Western values are by no means secure. They are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality with entitlement; they want to halt progress in order to worship Mother Earth. Personal liberty and private property are anathemas to people who want to control our lives. This is part and parcel of the multicultural and diversity movements infecting the western world.”

Colleges and universities, hotbeds of multiculturalismIt is not surprising that colleges and universities across this nation have become hotbeds of multiculturalism.  In the social environment that currently prevails on most of these campuses, young students are targeted for being taught the philosophy that no one and nothing is supposed to stand out. Everyone and everything is to be equal.  Not so, however, if the action in question is for the purpose of liberal indoctrination, such as when a college mandated LGBTQ training for all campus groups.   When one group requested an opt-out from the indoctrination, it was labeled a hate group, thus exemplifying the expected intolerance of the Left.  It goes without saying that if we don’t agree with Liberals, we’re part of a hate group. If Liberals don’t agree with us they are the enlightened ones, and have no trouble spewing angry, insulting comments to silence us.

Unfortunately on college campuses we have an ever-growing group of young men and women who no longer understand what it means to be an American.   A story that received national news attention a few weeks ago took place at the University of California, Irvine (U.C.I.), located in Orange County, which is one of the few remaining conservative Republican counties in California.   A student government group decided to ban flags from being displayed in a prominent place on campus, particularly the American flag, because as they were quoted: “it is a symbol of oppression.”  In all likelihood the students who created the firestorm have no clue as to what oppression really feels like.  They would be well advised to examine real oppression that exists in many countries throughout the World, such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.  The UCI students might feel differently about the United States if they witnessed real, not imagined, oppression.   Odd that they ignore the countries that forbid women to go to school, drive a car, show their hair or faces in public, or vote;  countries in which women are the property of their husbands, and where one can justifiably kill another who denounces a specific religious belief.

College students have the legal right to dishonor our American flag. Ironically they do so without considering that our flag is the symbol of the very freedom that gives them that right.  However, they are not immune to criticism for doing so, and their decision, once leaked to the media, caused American patriots everywhere to be outraged.  Thousands expressed their distaste and anger, wondering what caused this utter disrespect for “Old Glory”.  Some wondered if the students’ lack of patriotism originated from their home, their families?   Questions arose as to whether the 6 students were born and/or raised in America or whether they were foreign students whose loyalty lies elsewhere?   How could they be oblivious to the freedom and opportunities our flag represents?   Had they not been taught brave men and women died for the country that flag represents?  Citizens from all over wanted to know if the U.C.I. students in question were among those who have received federal (American) grants for their education, which have grown to around $30 million a year.  In this case, likely due to the resultant public outcry, the decision to remove the American flag was quickly overturned by school authorities.

Flag’s removal not an end all to U.C.I. controversy Despite the removal of the flag, the firestorm of controversy created by the “flag flap” continued.  But what happened next on the U.C.I. campus provided the most glaring explanation as to the thought process that produced the six student’s attitude towards “Old Glory”, and why it was targeted for removal. The first clue that caught the public’s attention was that students were not as shocked by the removal of the flag as they were the accompanying controversy.  The second major clue came several days later when it was reported that a letter of support for the six students had been circulated on campus, apparently by Rei Terada, a professor of Comparative Literature at U.C.I.  The petition included 1,200 signatures, sixty of which were from professors who, by signing, declared their approval of the decision and support for the six students.

The following is an excerpt from the letter:

“We admire the courage of the resolution’s supporters amid this environment of political immaturity and threat, and support them unequivocally.”  “We write to support the six members who offered the resolution to remove national flags from the ASUCI lobby,” the letter reads.  “The university ought to respect their political position and meet its obligation to protect and promote their safety.  The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia”

As more information and facts unfolded, it became apparent to observers that the source of the student’s disrespect for our American flag originated not with their families, but with a philosophy born in classrooms by exceedingly liberal professors who had the audacity to spew their liberal agenda into classrooms of vulnerable, open-minded young students, eager to please the authority over them.  It is about a creeping liberalism that has been dominating, not just U.C.I., but colleges and campuses all over America for decades. Students, our children who are the future of America, have become victims of professors with an extreme agenda.  The unpatriotic action of six U.C.I. students uncovered a far more serious problem that requires the attention and action of every American parent and patriot. The realization that the U.C.I flag incident was only discovered due to a “leak” , believed to have been reported to the media by a student and then fortunately given to a conservative media source to bring to the attention of the public, there is every cause to wonder how many similar college incidents go unnoticed throughout the country?

Influence of liberal professors in American classrooms                                                                                                     The obvious concern should be to what extent U.C.I professors and others in prestigious universities use their position of authority daily to infuse a liberal philosophy into American classrooms, thus indoctrinating rather than teaching vulnerable students.   An article in the L.A. Times entitled “Leftism at UC Leaves Many with Unbalanced Education” quotes a study that concluded: “Cal is a hotbed of leftist faculty and politically correct thinking, where many students are receiving a weak education”.  Students who only learn one viewpoint on controversial issues are not prepared for a society in which they will be challenged with differing perspectives.  With a compromised outlook, students risk succeeding in specific fields, only to find themselves at a disadvantage because of their one-sided frame of reference.

There have been astute students who have complained that professors continually point out America’s perceived failures without balancing the negative with this nation’s many achievements, many of which have propelled this country into becoming the great nation we now enjoy.  Such students are not easily influenced with rhetoric, but look at facts for their conclusions.  They respect our country and its accomplishments and know our borders do not prohibit people from leaving, but instead are challenged to manage the huge number of foreigners who want to enter America.  Just observing that one fact alone indicates we must be doing something right!

Notwithstanding, it is difficult for vulnerable young minds to resist the power of persuasive professors who convey and encourage students to resist national pride and thus consider themselves as “citizens of the world”, not citizens of the United States.  No wonder those six U.C.I. students wanted to remove the flag; they have been indoctrinated with anti-patriotic philosophies in favor of a one-world concept that discourages loyalty to one’s country.

Perhaps the “flap” over the flag has opened a door for all to see that a one-sided, exceedingly liberal political and philosophical perspective in classrooms can prove detrimental. An obvious conclusion is that it is not only the professors, but also school administrations that perpetrates the liberal indoctrination.  That seems logical when we realize most universities hire liberals over conservatives at a ratio as high as seven to one. The solution may be for taxpayers, parents, students, and donors to demand fair and equal hiring practices; one that creates a balance of conservatives to liberals, and which would provide students the opportunity to hear and learn a more fair and diverse political perspective. All students benefit when equipped with a better understanding of all political thought, provided without prejudice.

Equality a byword only when benefiting liberal ideal                                                                                                  Although equality is a byword among university professors, it appears to apply only if that equality benefits liberal ideals.  Recent revelations indicate school administrations are reluctant to make any changes to correct the liberal bias permeating their schools.  In fact they tend to excuse or justify the inequality when exposed.  The bias is not only witnessed in the Universities’ unfair hiring practices, but also in their choice of commencement speakers.  Liberals are favored seven to one over conservatives, which may be largely due to the backlash liberal professors create on the campus when a conservative speaker is selected.

Consider Rutgers University.  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was invited to give the school’s commencement speech, but soon after her acceptance a group of faculty members led by Rutgers Chemistry professor Robert Boikess and Rutger student Carmelo Cintrón Vivas began a campaign to force the school to disinvite the former United States official. Protestors gained national attention by an intensive effort to malign the former official, and liberal media sources slanted the story in favor of the protestors by citing quotes regarding Rice’s role in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and U.S. interrogation policies. To Rutgers credit it refused to disinvite Rice, but not wanting to create more controversy, Rice graciously rescinded her acceptance, stating: “Commencements should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families.  Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.”

In actuality, liberals were grateful for the opportunity Rutgers gave them to malign our former Secretary of state and in the process promote their own leftist agenda not only at the university but throughout the nation.

Can this nation tolerate centers of higher learning engaged in indoctrination?                                                        America can withstand unfair protests.  Our country can overcome the rhetoric spewed from the Left.  We can tolerate an occasional professor who has the same liberal mindset as former terrorist Bill Ayers.  What we cannot tolerate is for our nation’s college and university system to become learning centers where our children are indoctrinated by a majority of self-professed liberal professors whose goals are not that of our forefathers, the student’s parent, or the community in general.  The condemning of American policies, practices, laws, leaders and traditions must stop.  Our children deserve a fair and balanced education void of intentional leftist indoctrination.

It is time for each of us to demand real equality in all our schools, from elementary to the University level, which would include everything from hiring practices to the curriculum taught in each classroom.  Students deserve a balanced education, citizens should demand it, and the health of our nation requires it.   We must join together and demand fair hiring practices, then request they drop the controversial Common Core, eliminate the federal Department of Education, and detach from all unions. Now, that would be real progress; the type our brave and wise forefathers would have applauded!

| Permalink

Friday, March 20, 2015

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Comments

Friday, March 13, 2015

Wednesday, March 11, 2015