Thorner/O’Neil: George Soros – Leftist Behind Silencing Conservatives?

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Knowing Republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House, and the majority of State Governors, one might rightfully ask “Why do Democrats still have such a strong public voice?’ The answer is troubling: The majority of America’s media sources are exceedingly and blatantly biased. Largely comprised of Liberal Democrats, they want to sway the public to their political viewpoints, and whether intentional or not, they preach their interpretation of the news and important issues which concern most citizens. This is true of Hollywood radicals to the biased New York Times, and most media sources in between. Trumps’ surprising election victory signaled that the public wanted a new direction. They chose a non-politician for a reason and they will choose television, newspapers, websites, and radio programs that reflect a course correction to the Right, that they believe best and necessary for America.

Consider that very few television media sources currently provide viewers with the Conservative viewpoint. FOX News is one of the very few exceptions. Not surprisingly, FOX is disliked, if not hated, by many on the political Left, and yet their programming remains #1:  the most popular cable news program. Rather than the Left learning from Fox’s successes and adapting to a less extreme Liberal agenda, most on the Left instead choose to devise ways to silence the more popular, effective Conservative voices, especially those who expose facts detrimental to their Liberal agenda.

Initial Victim of Left’s Liberal Agenda

The most obvious victims have been known FOX personalities, such as Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Roger Ailes.

Glenn Beck was the first highly successful Conservative personality to suffer an attack by the Left, largely because he provided viewers with shocking facts that exposed details of specific people.  Beck concentrated on one man, George Soros, and all the organizations he founded and funded in association with his Open Society Foundation.

George Soros was not a household name at the time.  That changed when Beck began exposing details about this multimillionaire, such as how he uses his billions to manipulate the economy of specific countries to his advantage and often to their financial decline.  Even more interesting to Conservatives is that Beck provided  the names of these ultra-Liberal activist organizations, their functions and goals.

FOX viewers where shocked when FOX removed Glenn Beck, especially considering his program enjoyed excellent ratings. At the time, most did most did not connect his leaving with Mr. Soros.  The average American had no idea one man had the ability to remove someone as popular as Beck and that he was not immediately picked up by another media source.  However, his former audience finally realized the truth and that  Beck had been right all along about this man.  Beck’s warnings about Soros were not exaggerated.

Since Beck first exposed Soros on his FOX program, Soros has been busy adding to his immense wealth and adding more organizations to accomplish his anti-Conservative, many say anti-American, goals.  He has contributed more than $8,000,000.00 to at least 200 of his organizations. Many of which are described as detrimental to the values of our forefathers intent to undermine the principles of our U.S. democracy and to do whatever possible to silence those with whom they disagree, especially in maligning President Trump and his administration whenever possible.

It was a surprise to Thorner and O’Neil to learn that specific “fact-checker” teams are funded by George Soros with the aim to silence and/or discredit those with inconvenient facts that argue against his Liberal agenda.

Ailes and O’Reilly Suffer Same Fate

The next Soros casualty was Roger Ailes, the mastermind behind FOX News, one of the first to create a highly popular Conservative television news program.  Some in the industry considered Ailes a genius who also found and hired the most effective show personalities.

The biggest Fox shocker, however, was the removal of Bill O’Reilly from its programming.  This was an eye-opener that finally caused the public to begin questioning the oddity of FOX firing another highly popular Conservative voice.  It reminded FOX fans of the other victims who suffered a similar fate, causing them to realize there is a serious problem when someone with power can silence speech with which he disagrees.  It is a chilling reminder of why all speech must be jealously protected, and what happens if the public does not challenge those who ignore it.

The excuse given to the public regarding the removal of Ailes and O’Reilly was from claims, not proof, of sexual harassment; both men denied the claims.  At first blink, we tend to think the claims alone are sufficient enough to warrant removal.  But, it is curious that the supposed harassment occurred way before the women suddenly decided to report them.  Beck, on the other hand, was told he was fired because Fox objected to his mentioning of God.

Sean Hannity Fights Back

Now Sean Hannity has become the latest victim of an accusation of sexual harassment.   On Friday, April 21, 2017 on the Pat Campbell Show, former Fox News contributor, Debbie Schlussel, claimed Hannity had twice invited her to his hotel room after appearing together for one of his shows. Schlussel further claimed that after rejecting him, Hannity never invited her back on his show.  This was interestingly familiar to the claims against O’Reilly.

However, Hannity’s response was very different than his FOX friends.  He forcefully stated that Schlussel’s claims were “100 percent false and a complete fabrication,” further calling Schlussel a “serial harasser who has been lying about him for well over a decade.”  Threatening a lawsuit, Hannity made known that he will not allow slander and lies about him to go unchallenged in what he views as a coordinated effort afoot to silence those with conservative views.

After Hannity’s response, Schlussel changed her story.  Apparently she meant to say Hannity invited her to meet with him at his hotel, not in his hotel room.  Wow!  What a difference the threat of a lawsuit can make.  Too bad the other three Fox men didn’t respond in the same manner.

Calling all Patriots: Be Bold and Fight Back

All these men have been irritants of Soros, and it is fair to think Soros, his money, and his organizations were involved in a plot to remove them, their voices, and opinions because they opposed his own.  Are Soros’ tactics legal?  Regrettably they are, which should be a wake-up call to all Patriots who resent such tactics intended to silent opposition voices.

We might not have the money or power to match what Soros’ organizations can accomplish, but we do have the ability to join together in an effort to promote our political positions whenever and wherever possible.  There are Conservative, Republican groups throughout this nation that would be ecstatic to have Conservatives join them in their political efforts.  Rather than lamenting over what we perceive as wrong, a far better solution is to join other like-minded Patriots, providing a stronger voice that cannot be ignored.

We can boldly share our political views with friends, relatives, and neighbors. President Trump and his administration give us renewed hope and at least a four year window of opportunity to move America in the right direction.  Let’s do it!

Freedom is not free … it sometimes comes with a price each of us must pay to preserve what our forefathers gave to us.

Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

Tags: Illinois Review

Comments

Thorner/O’Neil: Conservative university students face unprecedented bias

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil –  

Many parents are in the process of visiting schools with their college-bound children trying to decide which one is a good fit. It is an exciting time, but also can be quite discouraging. Parents quickly learn most every college and university have increased tuition costs, often not affordable to the average family. Also, in general, these schools are inundated with liberal teachers and administrators that believe it their responsibilities to preach political opinions to their students, and they make little attempt to hide this fact. They not only preach their doctrines, but unfortunately, it is not unusual that they also bully and even use grades to persuade students to their leftist political opinion.  

How do students respond to these often blatant efforts? Those who have not been interested in politics are easy targets for such persuasion. Others who come from conservative homes try to maintain their political views, but soon learn their grades are impacted by any assignments that allow the teacher’s judgment to determine the grade.  Considering the high cost of tuition, most of these students aren’t willing to stand their ground and risk retaliation. They want to graduate with grades that will attract high paying jobs.  Considering students and/or parents are often forced to borrow money for their tuition, students understand the need to secure a job quickly upon graduation to pay back the loan. Thus, their priority becomes pleasing teachers and working for good grades.

As recently as the early 1990s, most students did not take out college loans. Contrast that to today, when nearly 71% of students must borrow to pay for college. It is fitting to suggest this needs to be investigated and facts exposed. What caused the unreasonable tuition rate hike to happen in such a short period of time? Some speculate schools are providing free or near free educations to large numbers of low income students, thus the need to charge some students more. 

Dr. Richard Bishirjan in his book, The Coming Death and Future Resurrection of American Higher Education,  exposes and confirms the higher education establishments impose tuition costs that force parents and students into crippling debt. In Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, Ben Shapiro also addresses this subject.  There is a need for more investigations and suggestions for ways to reduce the costs so that all students have the ability to receive the education that seek. 

Another problem, equally disturbing, is that the administrations and teaching staff have become exceedingly, blatantly liberal. 

My co-writer, Bonnie O’Neil, was at first hesitant to relate a personal example of a college’s hypocrisy after her grandson, Caleb O’Neil, faced an unfortunate situation as a freshman at Orange Coast College in California. However, after Caleb’s story went viral on the Internet with articles receiving a huge number of hits, O’Neil relented. After all, there is something appealing about a student standing up to a radical Liberal teacher blatantly preaching her political views. If a college freshman is willing to stand up to liberal professors who use their position of authority to indoctrinate students, shouldn’t we all do our best to expose known problems?  

Burt Prelutsky, Southern California-based political commentator, offered his own unique take on the kangaroo court proceedings against Caleb at Orange Coast College:

We have all witnessed the signs of the anti-Trump virus that has run rampant across America. We have all seen the various elements of the biased media join forces to delegitimize his administration. We have all seen Chuck Schumer and his trained seals in the Senate slow-walk Trump’s cabinet choices through their hearings. We have all seen the Soros-financed rioters going through their paces in the streets and on college campuses.

But something that may have slipped under the radar is the anti-Trump kangaroo court that recently doled out injustice at Orange Coast College. Although most of us were privy to what initially led to the legal lynching, you may not have been aware of the unfortunate, but not too surprising, conclusion to the story. 

Several weeks ago, a professor, Olga Perez Stable Cox, under the guise of conducting a class, said, among other things: ‘I will not tolerate any person in my life that voted for Trump,’ ‘I’m not going to Utah where my family lives because of their views on Trump,’ ‘President Trump is a white supremacist,’ ‘Vice-President Pence is one of the most anti-gay humans in the country,’ ‘I know you’re stuck in homes, you’re stuck in families, you’re stuck in places of employment where you’re surrounded,’ ‘It’s scary living in Orange County because so many people are hateful,’ ‘I hope that we can counter what this new administration is going to do.’

Because he was so outraged by the hatred spewing from the mouth of this self-identified lesbian, Caleb O’Neil taped her and made her screed a matter of public record.

You would have thought Ms. Cox would have been suspended or fired for wasting class time with her partisan bellyaching. But that would only prove that you were a visitor from a past era who had landed in 2017 thanks to your time travel machine. Instead, the administration decided that Mr. O’Neil was the one who needed to be disciplined. His crime?

‘Recording a class session without the permission of the instructor.’ 

His defense — although one shouldn’t be necessary because every teacher should be taped or recorded (what do they have to hide from the people who pay their salaries?) — was that he didn’t record the entire session, but only the 15 minutes or so after she went off the rails and abused her authority.

In the meantime, I have written the following letter to Dean Lugo: “I have read of the disciplinary action you have taken against young Mr. O’Neil. The part that grabbed my attention is that you asked him how he felt about his video having damaged the College’s students, faculty and staff. It seems to me that if a 15-minute video of Prof. Cox in action could be that damaging to your school’s reputation, the problem rests with her and not the student. How is it you don’t see it that way?

Evaluating the Outcome

Thanks to Burt and similar media sources, Caleb’s situation went viral.  Represented legally by a non-profit conservative group, Freedom X, and massive public support, School authorities decided to drop their suspension of Caleb. However, similar cases have not ended well for students who overtly express their Conservatives viewpoints.

Did the school and/or Ca. Teachers Union learn anything from the unfortunate problem that happened on the Orange Coast College campus in Costa Mesa, California?  Apparently not!  According to Teacher Union representative, Rob Schneiderman who stated: 

“The Coast Federation of Educators is deeply disappointed that administrators have capitulated to individuals and groups who threatened and bullied students, faculty, and administration.”

Mr. Schneiderman chose to ignore the improper behavior of the teacher and instead accused the student and those who supported him. This Teachers Union Representative did not offer any evidence of bullying by supporters of Caleb, unless he is referring to the thousands of people who disagreed with the school’s decision to punish this student with a suspension and contacted the school to express those views.

No action was taken against the teacher in question, causing the public to believe the Teachers Union and O.C.C. school officials have no problem with a teacher who spends15 minutes, off-topic, to express her personal political views which included maligning our new President and all who voted for him.   

Perhaps this incident explains why schools have a rule prohibiting students from recording a teachers’ lecture without his/her permission.  This  secrecy rule is not acceptable!   Lectures should be recorded in every high school and college classroom that accepts government funding.  It is time to assure the public that schools are teaching and not indoctrinating our children.  

This is just one of the many blatant examples of Liberal bias in colleges/universities throughout America.  There are many more areas in need of revision. Teacher Unions have become way too powerful, as they protect bad teachers at our children’s expense. Investigations need to be initiated in order to analyze why the cost of a college education has skyrocketed. Fair hiring practices should be enacted, but they are not enforced.  Diversity is a positive, which most schools welcome. However, that does not seem to extend to teachers’ political positions.  Students deserve to know the differences among us as well as what unites us in order to be better prepared for the World they will encounter.  That simply is not happening today.

We now have a President who wants to hear from those of us who have not had a voice for quite some time.  Let’s use this gift to demand fairness of representing all political views, equality, and more reasonably priced tuition in our schools. 

Friday, March 10, 2017 at 09:05 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: Gender equality in military under General James Mattis

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

 

The election of Donald Trump guarantees there will be significant changes in our country.   That is especially true considering Trump will begin his presidency with a Republican controlled House and Senate, which should help him make the course corrections he promised and which millions of voters agreed was necessary.  

 

One of the more troubling policy changes of the Obama years involved our military.  Obama’s attempt to propose a new policy to draft women into our military and/or authorizing military women to join men fighting in dangerous combat zones most likely will not emerge as a primary topic of discussion any time soon, but neither is the issue likely to be forgotten by its supporters.  

 

There are women who seek to have total equality with men regarding military assignments, in spite of evidence that indicates integrating them with men into combat zones produces negative risks that could seriously jeopardize their safety as well as others in their unit.  The evidence is undeniable but so is the tenacity of those who want the changes.  

 

Most Americans oppose the idea of drafting women for the military (Selective Service), but supporters insist equality is important, and lament the opposition is purely biased due to gender prejudice. 

 

Opening up combat positions to women

 

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s announcement in December 3, 2015, which opened all combat positions to women in 2016, is among the most momentous and controversial military decisions since President Harry S.Truman racially integrated the armed services in 1948.  In accordance, the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force are moving ahead to carry out Carter’s order. 

 

However, even those who support women in combat positions, question whether young women should be required, like young men, to register for the military draft.  The issue of mandatory military registration for women remains highly contested.

 

Women being able to serve in combat zones is less contested but certainly controversial. The question often asked is why would women even want to be in combat zones?  These are four responses offered: 1. Women claim If they wanted to avoid war zones, they would have volunteered for the peace corps, 2. They believe they should have equal opportunities and not be hindered by their sex, 3. If they can pass the qualifications, they should not be denied the opportunity and 3. Serving in combat zones helps them receive higher  commendations and promotions.  

 

Senator McCain and his secretive provision

 

Senator McCain, who heads the Senate’s Armed Service and is supportive of women serving in the military, claimed that military leaders wanted a draft for women.  In May of 2016 he slipped provisions into the 2017 Defense Bill which permitted it. McCain had the support of  General Neller,  a Marine military official who agrees with McCain.  However, the General’s personal opinion is not an official position of the U.S. Marine Corps and should not be considered as such.

 

Consider that this was the same McCain who failed to conduct public hearings in his Senate Armed Services Committee in the Fall of 2015, after an official request was made by General Joseph Dunford (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to the Secretary of State to explore exceptions to women-in-direct-ground-combat mandates. Dunford’s request to more carefully decide the prudence of women in combat zones was supported by solid empirical data.

 

General Dunford also recently urged all service members to avoid engaging in political arguments, stating the military should not undermine its own credibility.  The General stated “I have a duty to protect the integrity and political neutrality of our military profession.”  Apparently, the General understands the need to base this issue on facts and evidence rather than a politically based agenda.

 

General Dempsey concurred and made a plea to active service members requesting they not make political statements on social media, after a protest video inspired by 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was posted by a female sailor protesting what she considered racism in the national anthem.

 

Does gender integration make sense?

 

While advocates of gender integration say women are fully capable of performing the difficult and sometimes brutal tasks involved with combat, opponents state few women qualify for the higher standards and even fewer can meet the continual physical rigors of combat. They contend that female front-line soldiers could endanger their units and make them less lethal in battle.

 

The Center for Military Rediness, an independent, non-partisan, public policy organization, confirms this with their Don’t Draft Our Daughters Fact Sheet dated September 19, 2016.  More information is available at www.cmrlinkj.org.

 

National Security, not “Equality” should decide the Issue

 

If “Draft Our Daughters” legislation became law, any call-up of men ages 18-26 for military service would have to include an equal number of young women. Compelling arguments against drafting women state:

• Even though some exceptional women may be able to meet minimal standards, the fact remains that most women cannot meet combat arms readiness standards while most men can and do.

• A system that allows women to compete would have to divert scarce time and resources to find, evaluate, and ultimately train thousands of women ˗˗ just to find the very few who might be minimally qualified for difficult combat positions.

• Jamming the SS system during a time of crisis, instead of concentrating on men who can be rapidly trained to fight in physically-demanding ground combat units, would create a political crisis and a paralyzing administrative overload at the worst possible time.

A new study confirms that women fall short of combat skills and documents that all-male units perform better than mixed gender ones. Critics of drafting women claim this should not be about satisfying social justice issues; it is about winning wars against dangerous enemies and protecting both our troops and the public from harm.

 

Un-equal burdens on Women

 

Further information from empirical studies have repeatedly shown that womens’ rates of injury are two- to ten-times greater than mens’ and even higher in load-bearing military occupations, which prompts critics of women in combat  to state:

• It would not be “fair” or “equal” to register or draft women for military combat, since most do not have an equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers survive in that environment.

• Misplaced resentment by feminists is no excuse; both military and civilian women have always volunteered and served in times of national emergency, and they will do so again. A mandatory draft simply is not needed and should not be lawfully required.

It would be prudent for Congress to initiate open hearings and allow the public to examine recent scientific research, tests comparing the physical capabilities of male and female volunteers, and be knowledgeable of the myriad of other serious problems associated with combining men and women in combat zones.

 

Facts proving there are numerous problems with the “Our Daughters Law” must be publicly exposed and documented.  It is not just common sense but facts which prove that allowing women to join men in combat zones creates unnecessary problems that would likely impede future readiness and thus create a potential catastrophic national emergency.  

 

Reprieve from Obama’s social experiments in military under a Trump Presidency

 

As reported on FoxNew.com on January 11, 2017, under Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, President Trump’s Pentagon is likely to abandon social experiments for core missions to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military. It is no surprise that certain Senate Democrats initially opposed his nomination.  Now that the General has been confirmed, it will be interesting to see if he remains consistent with his viewpoint on this issue and not be intimidated by the size and political power recently demonstrated by the politically charged “Women Marches”  in cities throughout our country protesting  our newly elected President and a perceived opinion he lacks concern for women.

 

Some critics say many of Obama’s decisions and choices were born more out of his passion to be “politically correct” and thus devoid of enough factual evidence to support what many found highly problematic decisions. That method of decision making is in direct contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach, which is one reason Obama’s interference in changing military policy was quietly questioned by military leaders, as well as the public.

 

This issue needs to be a top priority and a thorough investigation initiated by the Trump Administration in conjunction with our military leaders. Facts are essential going forward, not only so that the public can be assured our military has not been compromised by unnecessary and potentially harmful politically charged changes, but so that America retains the most powerful military possible to protect our people from enemies.

 

Military under General James Mattis 

 

Will General Mattis revisit the Obama Administration’s decision to name Navy ships for civil rights activists rather than those who bravely risked and/or gave their lives serving on those ships to protect all American citizens?  Many in the military hope that policy will be among the first to revisited.

Another questionable action initiated by the Obama administration regarded new rules that minimized expressions of Christianity in the ranks.  An example of this is several officers were disciplined for displaying bibles or gospel verses in their private quarters.  This appears to be in direct contradiction of our Constitutional right of religious freedom, which should not be   set aside for those in the military. Quite the opposite; those in harms way need this right more than most.

 

According to defense contractor and retired Army Col. Robert Maginnia, General Mattis will likely “bring the warrior ethos back to the Pentagon. Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News contributor, said the strong emphasis on social reform in the last eight years sometimes came at the expense of the military’s core objective.  As Keane was quoted saying:

 

“Social engineering was a distractor from what the main mission of the United States military was about. We were involved in conflict and war, and these reforms achieved a level of prominence that subordinated the issue of war itself.”

 

General Mattis and Women

 

General Mattis has made statements that indicate his position on this subject.  said women should not be in combat because, if they were, the nation’s enemies would no longer fear America’s awesome determination to defend herself.  He said “physical standards for combat jobs would become more lax and women would not have privacy for their bodily functions.  Mattis wisely stated there will be no more political correctness, just a focus on being warriors.

 

In a book on civilian-military relations, co-edited with Kori Schake, Mattis warned of the danger of civilian leaders with a “progressive agenda.”  His book also warns that “an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military.”

 

Conservatives must be wary of progressive Democrats

 

Despite positive signs in the soon-to-be Trump administration, the push to draft women as well as integrate them among men in combat zones will not go quietly away and neither will many other changes initiated within the last decade. Progressive Democrats will do their best to block Conservative Republicans from replacing specific Obama in initiated laws. Recent demonstrations within our cities seem to prove that point.

 

Conservatives now have the advantage and a widow of opportunity to work with the Trump administration to make America great again, but how long will it continue?  After all, it was Senator McCain, a Republican, who last year inserted the amendment in the 2017 National Defense bill that Obama came close to signing into law.  Each of us must use this time and opportunity wisely to make needed and appropriate changes where necessary, but also fight against bills which we see as potentially harmful.  The “silent majority” must find its voice and speak out so that both liberal and conservative voices are equally heard. Hold our media accountable for truth and fairness, because our future depends upon it.

 

Saturday, January 21, 2017 –  Thorner/O’Neil:  Will Trump drop his predecessor’s ridiculous notion of drafting women?  http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/01/thorneroneil-will-trump-drop-the-ridiculous-notion-of-drafting-women.html#more

 

Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: Will Trump drop his predecessor’s ridiculous notion of drafting women?

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

A debate continues within our country as to whether women should serve in the military in positions of combat duty as opposed to nursing and clerical work. Conversations continue as to what positions and specific assignments might be included as standard for women and whether the government should automatically include women in the “draft” process.

The issue first arose in 1945 when Congress was poised to do something previously unthinkable: draft women. There was a pressing need for this change, because the intense Normandy invasion and other WW II military offensives had produced enormous casualty figures.   Our Army medical resources were strained to the breaking point, creating an acute shortage of nurses which was said to be jeopardizing the care given to our wounded men.

This prompted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to use his State of the Union Address on January 6, 1945, to paint a grim picture of the crisis and take the unprecedented step of conscripting women into the military. The army, he said, needed 18,000 more nurses to bring the Army Nurse Corps to a strength of 60,000.

It is important to understand the uniqueness of this specific time in history. World War II was all consuming to our people, the military, and officials, as it personally touched and therefore impacted every one of their lives in some way. The thought of wounded soldiers being unable to receive immediate care due to a severe shortage of nurses was unthinkable and thus received support it might not have had in less urgent times. 

The Senate Military Affairs Committee approved a conscription bill on March 28, 1945, and sent it to the full Senate.  The publicity surrounding the draft debate spurred enlistments. In the week after Roosevelt’s address, 4,000 nurses applied for army duty—twice the number for the last two months of 1944.   Soon thereafter the war seemed to be coming to an end, and thus the issue became less important and less discussed.

May, 1981: Case of “Rostker v. Goldberg”

Fast forward to May, 1981, the war had been over for decades and Americans were now engrossed in their civilian lives but the Supreme Court was now considering whether to compel women to be drafted in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg.  At the time Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum, and an ally of hers in Congress, Rep. Billy Lee Evans (D-GA), were strongly opposed to the legislation introduced in the 97th Congress, Session 1, H.R. 2791 (Woman’s Draft Exemption Act).  They threatened to withdraw jurisdiction from the courts if needed to prevent women from being drafted. The following month a divided Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not compel drafting women, based on the then-existing exclusion of women from combat. 

It may be of interest to note that Democrat President Jimmy Carter approved drafting women for the military.

Obama Administration opens military to draft of women

Nearly thirty-five years later the Obama Administration removed the exclusion of women from combat, and some now argue that the Constitution requires that the Selective Service registration apply to women just as it does to men.

In December of 2015, Barack Obama’s Defense Secretary Ashton Carter reversed centuries of U.S. military tradition with this historic announcement that all military occupational specialties would now be open to women. 

“Women will be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat,” he stated, provided that the women can meet the same physical and professional standards as men. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force and parajumpers previously open only to men.”

Joint Chiefs Chairman Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, who was alone among the service chiefs in opposing the total integration of women into the force, was absent from Ashton Carter’s announcement at a Pentagon briefing.

Senator McCain slips in proposal draft for women

Following this change of military tradition, during a closed-door meeting in May of 2016 and without prior notice, Republican Armed Service Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) proposed  legislation as an amendment extending the draft to women into the National Defense Authorization Act (a key piece of military funding legislation) to force 18 to 26 year-old women to register with Selective Service for a possible future draft and to further establish a commission on National Service to explore other options for co-ed conscription.  The legislation was meant to be a milestone in women’s equality for the military.

Although House Republicans were successful in stripping the House bill of the provision found in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to include America’s young women in a national military draft, the “Draft our Daughters” provision remained in the Senate’s version of the NDAA. 

On November 1, 2016, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a $602 billion defense bill that included an amendment that would require women to register for the draft (known as Selective Service) for the first time in American history. 

However, this did not happen without energizing the opposition.  In December of 2016 conservatives secured an important victory.  17 Senate conservatives signed a letter, championed by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), advocating opposition to any defense bill that included the “Draft our Daughters” provision. The provision was ultimately removed during conference negotiations, marking an important win for the conservatives.

On December 23, 2016, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, a compromised version which called for a commission to study two related issues: Whether women should be included in Selective Service and whether the Selective Service system itself should be abolished.

President Obama is the first president, since President Jimmy Carter, to endorse universal draft registration for women when they turn 18.   

The question now being asked is what impact the election of Donald Trump might have on this issue. Will it influence the discussion within the Commission and/or will their recommendations be compatible with those of Republicans who now dominate the House and Senate? The issue may soon be decided, but history indicates it never seems to be permanently settled.  Hopefully, the Commission will enact a “wait and see” policy, because it is far easier to enact a policy than it is to reverse it once in place.

Part 2  will explain some of the points most likely being discussed by the Commission, which will give readers more insight into the opinions of each side. 

Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: America’s decline attributed to decline of Christianity

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Some attribute Donald Trump winning the election to him touching on issues which most American citizens believe are most important – that America is in a financial and moral decline. But Trump’s success still doesn’t answer when, how, and what caused the decline?  

Some point out the moral decline began when a liberal Supreme Court demanded prayer and Christianity be barred from our schools, which was quickly followed with attempts by liberals to remove Christianity from all public places. When a law forbids something, most people believe the new law is put in place to protect people from harm, but nobody could possibly prove prayer is harmful to anyone. In fact, there is proof of just the opposite.  

A quick look at the Court’s decision to remove prayer from our schools and all public places was based on the lie that our Founders wanted a separation of church and state. The liberal Supreme Court Justices used misinformation to justify their intentions. The phrase “separation of church and state” was used in a letter in which Thomas Jefferson responded regarding whether one denomination of Christianity should prevail over others in America. The intended meaning was intentionally misconstrued and used as the basis for banning school prayers. The following quote by Jefferson clearly indicates his strong opinion about a nation’s need for God – proving his opinion never would have been to exclude prayer from our children’s schools.

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”

That our forefathers embraced Christianity in the public place is easily proved as evidenced throughout our history.  Consider that Scripture verses were engraved on many of our public buildings, even those in Washington D.C.  Consider that most states mention “our creator” and/or “God” in the preamble to their state constitutions. Our early schools used the Bible for reading assignments and our early school textbooks were filled with biblical references. Most certainly, God was very much a part of America’s beginning and throughout our history.  This Supreme Court decision lacked a credible basis, it lacked historical precedence, and it was unpopular with the general public.   

No one can seriously deny our Founders were men of faith.  Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held Seminary or Bible School degrees.  Their decisions reflected the Bible they honored.  Even those who were not overt Christians nevertheless understood the importance of Christianity.  They wisely knew faith in God benefited both the people and country in a way nothing else could.  Morality is the backbone of a prosperous country.

Why did America begin abandoning all that made her great?  Who can deny our nation is in trouble when we are 20 trillion dollars in debt, our economy is faltering, jobs are increasingly difficult to find, Obamacare has become unaffordable with healthcare costs  at an all-time high, close to half of all Americans are on some type of welfare program, and racial tensions and violence have been steadily increasing rather than decreasing.

People who take to the streets to discredit and malign our brave police force are being financed by globalist like billionaire George Soros, and others, who fund groups and organizations to oppose the values of our Forefathers. Can anyone seriously deny that America has changed and is dangerously close to suffering the fate of other once great nations that lost their direction as a nation. It is true: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  It is dangerous when our elected officials believe they are above the law or that they can initiate their own laws.  Yet, there is evidence that has been happening.

It is wise to discuss the causes of the downward trend in America to get a better understanding of what and how to correct problems.  There are many who believe the catalyst for problems began with the liberal Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion. That law was considered the final atrocity that revealed we no longer could call America a Christian nation if we legalized killing the unborn. The Supreme  Court claimed this law was passed to usher in safe and legal ways for women whose health or well-being was endangered due to an unwanted pregnancy. The plaintiff in Roe vs. Wade lied when she claimed she had been raped.  The second intent of the Court was that abortions were to be legal, safe, and rare.  That had no teeth for possible convictions, and thus Sixty (60) million babies have been aborted in America in the last 40 years, proving abortion in our country is anything but rare.  

Those who find this number of aborted babies appalling would likely be horrified by liberal, self-admitted atheist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who stated: 

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”  Sanger also described Blacks, immigrants and indigents as:  “…human weeds … reckless breeders …spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”   

Those comments are hateful, and yet it is liberals who accuse Conservatives of being  insensitive because they oppose the killing of innocent lives.  Most recently, we discovered that Planned Parenthood also has been selling aborted baby parts for profit.  However, this revelation was quickly dropped by the media, a few hands were slapped for allowing the information to go public, and Sanger’s Planned Parenthood continues to exterminate the unwanted with our tax money.  Few among us have voiced our objections to a government that allows what can only be described by honest people as legalized massive murder of the most innocent and vulnerable among us. 

The fact is we all must accept a share in the blame for the moral decline of America, because we have not been vocal or persistent in our objections to the liberal changes that have occurred on a rather regular basis.  We rarely investigate all the candidates, and instead just vote based on their background, political party, and/or opinion on issues.  We pay little or no attention to those we elect once they are in office.  Most of us do not make it a priority to learn how our representatives voted on important issues that impact our lives.  Also unfortunate is that only a small percent of American citizens even know the names of their elected officials, let alone keep track of how they vote.  Even fewer hold them accountable to keep their campaign promises.   

Can we save America from the fate of other once great countries who failed and fell?  Yes!  If enough of us take the time to be educated on facts, bills, and laws so we can discover which are detrimental and then share information with those in our sphere of influence.    We must begin to talk with friends and relatives about political matters and share viewpoints, as well as call, email, or text elected officials to express our opinions.

To make America great again, we must join conservative organizations and strategize about simple ways to help make positive differences.  It is important to talk to our church leaders about informing fellow Christians of important information that impacts Christian families.  Christians want to support Godly, but they often don’t know how or where to seek information. What better place to provide information on moral subjects than in our churches with like-minded people?  

For any who doubt our nation was founded by those who knew the importance of Christianity in our lives and understood this to be the mainstay of our country’s future, I urge you to visit the website below that provides the proof.  As you read each amazing quote, consider how far America has wandered from what these astute early American leaders believed important for America.  It is why we must stay devoted to restoring our conservative values, attend the church of our choice regularly,  and begin building and restoring the values which allowed America to become a great country, with freedoms and rights many others only dream of having.

Let’s do everything possible to keep America from that last 10th step that defines the end of a free nation. We must prevent America from experiencing the horrendous fate of what happened to other once great countries who forgot the basics and lost everything.  Even if we are not successful in stopping the decline and inevitable deterioration of America, at least those of us who tried to save our country will have the sweet peace of knowing we did all we could to prevent it.  So, let us all commit do whatever possible in the months ahead to engage others in conversations about these issues while the opportunity remains and before criticism might no longer be considered a right.

The following quote from Ronald Regan, stated on October 27, 1964, is a warning to the American people of how fragile this nation is and what we must do to insure that future generations do not live tyranny: 

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.   It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United State where men were free.”

John Adams once wrote of the new republic: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Are we still a moral and religious people? Sadly, I think we all know the answer to that question — even before the poll results were know on Tuesday, November 9^th, 2016.

Friday, November 11, 2016 at 08:37 AM | Permalink

Tags: America, Bible, Christianity, Illinois Review

Thorner/O’Neil: What Can We Do to Save This Nation?

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Are you concerned about our country?  Certainly, the 2016 election confirmed many of our worst fears, including that America is in a frightening decline.  Once again the mainstream media has continued to confirm its blatant liberal bias which is not just disappointing, it is outrageous. Many media sources put aside any attempt for fairness in reporting in order to help a specific candidate win an election.

Consider this statement by the late journalist Michael Kelly:  “What journalists choose and how journalists frame inescapably arises out of what journalists believe.  As a group, journalists believe in liberalism and in electing Democrats.”   Knowing this blatant bias exists, do we think media sources will make any serious attempt to expose corruption by their chosen candidates once elected and in office?  Will they continue to protect this person no matter the subject or issue? 

Other than Rush Limbaugh, the entire media has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades.   FOX news, under the ownership of conservative Rupert Murdoch and the expert guidance of Roger Ailes, became the one exception to the media’s liberal domination, and in so doing, FOX grabbed the top spot in ratings, as Conservatives finally found a source that mirrored their political viewpoints.  However, since Ailes is no longer with FOX, the hope is that Mr. Murdock’s replacement will prove to be as talented as Ailes in keeping FOX programming “fair and balanced” and far more conservative than other media sources. 

Concerned Citizens React

It is frightening for those of us who see present changes as detrimental to America and our future.  It is shocking to realize those in high government positions are blatantly bias. Most recently, FBI Director Comey’s investigation and resultant decision about Hillary’s email scandal and the obviously flawed Clinton Foundation will be a subject discussed for quite some time.  Comey had been considered efficient, talented, and unbiased by both political parties.   However, it appears Comey proved to be as vulnerable as all the rest, as he set his principles aside to treat Hillary differently due to her position.  If we needed any tangible proof of how far our country has declined, Conservatives would say Comey just offered it. 

However, Director Comey must be credited with providing the facts, so at least the World knows the truth of Hillary’s carelessness with classified information while Secretary of State, and social media provided even more details of her disrespect for federal rules and laws.  It will be interesting to know how history judges this issue and the entire 2016 presidential election. 

What Can Concerned Citizens Do?

What can concerned citizens do when our leaders are proven to be liars, deceivers, and self-absorbed to the point of being above the law and losing sight of what made America great?    Bill and Hillary have flagrantly violated established laws and protocol for all to see, and yet the mainstream media ignores or finds ways to excuse it.   We no longer trust the exceedingly biased liberal mainstream media for fair reporting, so where do we go for facts and truth? 

We can only hope America has not imploded to the point of no return, because this election proved integrity was the big loser at several different levels.  The compromised media is one indicator of how far America has strayed from its roots, but it is not the only one that should concern us.

Liberal politicians and government officials have been producing a myriad of highly questionable and problematic laws and new policies which ultimately benefit their personal political agenda, not necessarily what is best for their constituents or our country.  Politicians claim some of the more controversial new laws, i.e., illegal immigration, were enacted out of compassion for specific people, but, in reality, they have damaged and/or harmed our citizens.

Authors of these bills and laws neglected to consider the potential unintended, serious consequences these laws ultimately have caused.  The damage and consequences not only have impacted individual citizens, but they are ultimately destructive to our whole nation as well.  The exceptional nation that most of us have known and profited from is in serious trouble, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans have no awareness of that truth. 

Citizen Awareness Paramount

If we can make our citizens aware of the various studies which describe definite patterns that occur in both the rise and fall of notable nations, perhaps America can be saved from the fate so often experienced by other countries. Scholars have discovered the first stage of becoming a great country is the move from bondage to spiritual faith. The second phase is from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth is from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage is where we see the start of the decline of a country, best explained by stating abundance has led to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency followed by a complacency that leads to apathy. The eighth step goes from apathy to moral decay.  The ninth stage is from moral decay to dependence.  The tenth and final stage moves from dependence to total bondage.  

Does this pattern seem familiar?  It should!  This is a brief overview of what has and is happening in America. Now the question becomes how to prevent the last and final stage from happening and thus destroying America as we have known it for the past 200 years.  

Founding Fathers Point the Way

America’s awesome beginning happened when God was at the center of our nation and the vast majority of our people respected and followed biblical teachings. Sadly, it appears the decline in which we now find ourselves most resembles the ninth stage, “moral decay to dependence,” with only the final stage left which is “back to bondage.”  Did you ever think we could be dumb enough to follow the pattern of others’ mistakes, knowing it has always ended badly?   It is a fool’s folly to think we can escape the fate every other nation experienced.  We must break the cycle and reverse our present destructive course.  Our only hope is to find a viable plan that will help us return to our beginning roots and that begins with people embracing a strong spiritual faith and abiding by God’s Word. 

Elections are the answer our forefathers provided us to correct the system whenever it was off course.  They knew that having the right people represent us in positions of authority was essential to our prosperity. However, has the American public become like the proverbial “frog in water” that failed to notice how hot the water gradually became until it was too late to jump out and save himself?   Will our citizens realize the danger to America if all they see and hear comes from liberal dominated media sources that present one side of every issue?  If so, will they demand equality? If so, how do they do that in the most productive way possible?  

Americans want to trust news sources to provide accurate and complete information, without having to worry if their source is being fair and balanced.  We want to know about new bills before they become laws, so we have an opportunity to express our views.  That has become an important issue as we see politicians who are determined to change our country one secretly devised law after another.  We must not allow ourselves to become complacent about politicians, especially as we learn some are cheating, lying and breaking campaign promises to win elections.

Wednesday, November 09, 2016 at 07:55 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: What Can We Do to Save This Nation?

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Are you concerned about our country?  Certainly, the 2016 election confirmed many of our worst fears, including that America is in a frightening decline.  Once again the mainstream media has continued to confirm its blatant liberal bias which is not just disappointing, it is outrageous. Many media sources put aside any attempt for fairness in reporting in order to help a specific candidate win an election.

Consider this statement by the late journalist Michael Kelly:  “What journalists choose and how journalists frame inescapably arises out of what journalists believe.  As a group, journalists believe in liberalism and in electing Democrats.”   Knowing this blatant bias exists, do we think media sources will make any serious attempt to expose corruption by their chosen candidates once elected and in office?  Will they continue to protect this person no matter the subject or issue? 

Other than Rush Limbaugh, the entire media has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades.   FOX news, under the ownership of conservative Rupert Murdoch and the expert guidance of Roger Ailes, became the one exception to the media’s liberal domination, and in so doing, FOX grabbed the top spot in ratings, as Conservatives finally found a source that mirrored their political viewpoints.  However, since Ailes is no longer with FOX, the hope is that Mr. Murdock’s replacement will prove to be as talented as Ailes in keeping FOX programming “fair and balanced” and far more conservative than other media sources. 

Concerned Citizens React

It is frightening for those of us who see present changes as detrimental to America and our future.  It is shocking to realize those in high government positions are blatantly bias. Most recently, FBI Director Comey’s investigation and resultant decision about Hillary’s email scandal and the obviously flawed Clinton Foundation will be a subject discussed for quite some time.  Comey had been considered efficient, talented, and unbiased by both political parties.   However, it appears Comey proved to be as vulnerable as all the rest, as he set his principles aside to treat Hillary differently due to her position.  If we needed any tangible proof of how far our country has declined, Conservatives would say Comey just offered it. 

However, Director Comey must be credited with providing the facts, so at least the World knows the truth of Hillary’s carelessness with classified information while Secretary of State, and social media provided even more details of her disrespect for federal rules and laws.  It will be interesting to know how history judges this issue and the entire 2016 presidential election. 

What Can Concerned Citizens Do?

What can concerned citizens do when our leaders are proven to be liars, deceivers, and self-absorbed to the point of being above the law and losing sight of what made America great?    Bill and Hillary have flagrantly violated established laws and protocol for all to see, and yet the mainstream media ignores or finds ways to excuse it.   We no longer trust the exceedingly biased liberal mainstream media for fair reporting, so where do we go for facts and truth? 

We can only hope America has not imploded to the point of no return, because this election proved integrity was the big loser at several different levels.  The compromised media is one indicator of how far America has strayed from its roots, but it is not the only one that should concern us.

Liberal politicians and government officials have been producing a myriad of highly questionable and problematic laws and new policies which ultimately benefit their personal political agenda, not necessarily what is best for their constituents or our country.  Politicians claim some of the more controversial new laws, i.e., illegal immigration, were enacted out of compassion for specific people, but, in reality, they have damaged and/or harmed our citizens.

Authors of these bills and laws neglected to consider the potential unintended, serious consequences these laws ultimately have caused.  The damage and consequences not only have impacted individual citizens, but they are ultimately destructive to our whole nation as well.  The exceptional nation that most of us have known and profited from is in serious trouble, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans have no awareness of that truth.

Citizen Awareness Paramount

If we can make our citizens aware of the various studies which describe definite patterns that occur in both the rise and fall of notable nations, perhaps America can be saved from the fate so often experienced by other countries. Scholars have discovered the first stage of becoming a great country is the move from bondage to spiritual faith. The second phase is from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth is from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage is where we see the start of the decline of a country, best explained by stating abundance has led to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency followed by a complacency that leads to apathy. The eighth step goes from apathy to moral decay.  The ninth stage is from moral decay to dependence.  The tenth and final stage moves from dependence to total bondage.  

Does this pattern seem familiar?  It should!  This is a brief overview of what has and is happening in America. Now the question becomes how to prevent the last and final stage from happening and thus destroying America as we have known it for the past 200 years. 

Founding Fathers Point the Way

America’s awesome beginning happened when God was at the center of our nation and the vast majority of our people respected and followed biblical teachings. Sadly, it appears the decline in which we now find ourselves most resembles the ninth stage, “moral decay to dependence,” with only the final stage left which is “back to bondage.”  Did you ever think we could be dumb enough to follow the pattern of others’ mistakes, knowing it has always ended badly?   It is a fool’s folly to think we can escape the fate every other nation experienced.  We must break the cycle and reverse our present destructive course.  Our only hope is to find a viable plan that will help us return to our beginning roots and that begins with people embracing a strong spiritual faith and abiding by God’s Word. 

Elections are the answer our forefathers provided us to correct the system whenever it was off course.  They knew that having the right people represent us in positions of authority was essential to our prosperity. However, has the American public become like the proverbial “frog in water” that failed to notice how hot the water gradually became until it was too late to jump out and save himself?   Will our citizens realize the danger to America if all they see and hear comes from liberal dominated media sources that present one side of every issue?  If so, will they demand equality? If so, how do they do that in the most productive way possible?  

Americans want to trust news sources to provide accurate and complete information, without having to worry if their source is being fair and balanced.  We want to know about new bills before they become laws, so we have an opportunity to express our views.  That has become an important issue as we see politicians who are determined to change our country one secretly devised law after another.  We must not allow ourselves to become complacent about politicians, especially as we learn some are cheating, lying and breaking campaign promises to win elections.

Wednesday, November 09, 2016 at 07:55 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: Political correctness sets the path towards totalitarianism tolerance

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

It has been recognized for some time that America’s colleges have become learning and training centers for progressives to peddle their political product. Unfortunately,  the liberal “bug” has been caught by high school students as well, infecting them with a rash of radical thinking that should concern all Americans who fret about the future health of this nation.

Upon entering college, most colleges/universities ask freshman students to complete a written survey that asks extremely personal questions. Some parents have concerns about the purpose of asking many of those questions, but that is an issue for another article. The take-away from one of the latest surveys conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles should raise a warning flag for all American patriots. Results revealed that 71% of the incoming freshman students thought that colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus. Over 40% of these incoming students also believe colleges have the right to ban specific people they consider offensive from speaking on college campuses.

This begs the question: who determines which speaker and viewpoint are acceptable and which are not? 

Such behavior indicates a disturbing trend that individuals of conservative and moderate political leanings are likely to deem serious problems. It should raise concerns that our students are not being taught basic lessons of history or the important privileges endowed to American citizens thanks to our founders’ wisdom which provided us with the Bill of Rights and our amazing American Constitution. Too many students in America today lack essential knowledge which would help them understand the many important lessons about our nation’s past.

Wisdom comes when students are taught and given examples of mistakes and disastrous decisions made by other countries with once were great, but allowed supercilious leaders to take away their rights. This loss usually occurs gradually, one freedom at a time. As such, the actions of liberal politicians often are overlooked by the population, until enough power has been transferred from the people to the government, rendering citizens’ rights non-existent. Once the transfer of power is complete, the people no longer have the means to recover what been lost.

Gateway for Totalitarian Government

Such is the way free societies have been replaced with a Totalitarian government which then controlled everything within the country. We know the famous quote: “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”  But do not think it cannot happen here in America.  No country or people are too big to fall.  We all should pay attention to the signs, while there is time to stop and correct any disastrous decision and/or direction. That is why the survey taken by freshman students at U.C.L.A. must be seen as a harbinger that patriots cannot take lightly.  Each of us must be alert to changes we see and speak out about them.  We must demand that all our public schools put an emphasis on teaching our children conservative values that have proven to be timeless and true.  No student should graduate from high school without a knowledge of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Do you know if that is happening in your school district?  If not … ASK!  

Conservatives complain the media is 95% liberal.  Well, that is largely because of our schools.  Teachers and professors play a major role in shaping the ideas and opinions of students who then enter into a variety of jobs and positions which influence society. Some of those jobs/positions, such as those in the field of media, have the ability to shape people to a specific viewpoint, a philosophy which can then impact the direction of our entire country.  Movies, music, television programming, newspapers, books, and/or politics all have left their fingerprints on our society.  Changes in how Americans view an issue are often traced to a trend the media has fostered.  Consider their portrayal of cigarette smoking.  Watch an old movie and most every star has a cigarette in his/her hand or mouth, thus the habit became wide-spread.  Today smoking on screen is almost non-existent and for that society has benefited. 

Today schools are no longer graduating students who have the same values of our forefathers.  Schools no longer encourage students to learn about biblical viewpoints once taught in our schools, when prayer was encouraged and the Ten Commandments hung from the walls in most school classrooms or hallways. Colleges that once had separate dorms for females and males choose to mix the two and thus promote opportunities for sexual encounters. Modesty has become almost non-existent.  This trend has led to even more sexual freedom as faculties promote “comprehensive sex education” classes.   Colleges today have classes with assignments to try a new sexual experience and to make a report on their discoveries.  Liberal professors throughout America outnumber Conservative professors at a ratio as high as twelve to one. 

Our schools are graduating students who enter society with a whole new set of liberal standards very different from those of their parents and grandparents. They are changing America in a multitude of ways with a new set of standards and ideas, many of which are based on sexuality, physical appearance, and the glorification of youth. Unfortunately, this tends to then minimize the worth of many time honored values such as modesty, fidelity, conservative values, and respect for the elderly who have accumulated wisdom through their years of experiences.  These examples of changes in our society can be traced to the many questionable liberal influences of our liberal educators. 

Laws Determine Societal Trends and Direction

Another effective way to change people for the better or worse, and thus nations, is through our system of laws.  Laws permit or prohibit much of what will be tolerated by society.  Liberal leaders produce liberal laws. Those who lived in the 1960s would not have thought “abortion on demand” would ever be lawful in America or that states would be forced by the federal government to allow homosexuals to marry.  Society underestimated the power of liberals who have shared their philosophy with our children, who then perpetuated the liberal agenda.   

Some may argue that liberal ideas are helpful, but often those who promote them do not always consider what seems a good idea at the time can morph into becoming much worse by unintended consequences.   Consider also what happened after our marriage laws changed in the 1970s and allowed “irreconcilable differences” as the only reason needed for a divorce. No longer was it necessary to prove adultery or brutality.  Thus, our divorce rates went from 23% to 50% within 20 years.  Divorce is a tragedy, not just for the couple, but for their family, friends, and ultimately society. 

History has proven that when countries abandon their spiritual roots, practices, and laws, there are inevitable negative consequences.  The health of a country can largely be determined by the number of citizens who honor God and live accordingly.  When schools begin to teach and produce a different product, one that discourages tradition, religion, and time-proven values, there are negative consequences.  

Agents of Change

Those who understand and agree our families and country are beginning to suffer largely due to the liberals dominating our school system, must join the battle to demand equal representation of professors and chancellors.  It is simply not fair or profitable that our school system is dominated and ruled by liberals who are facilitating the negative changes we see today.  

Let’s all call our elected officials and demand that school’ hiring practices be fair.  Ask your elected officials why universities are allowed to hire liberal professors over conservative professors at the unbalanced ratio of 12 – 1. If liberal professors dispute your claim, ask them to provide you with documented facts to the contrary.  Call your local school board and ask if they are teaching students about our wonderful American Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Ask if their students know why free speech must be protected, even if and when it is offends someone.

It is imperative we join together and fight to reclaim what we have lost and restore what has been lost, while we still have the chance to do so.  Doing nothing is no longer an option if we want America to stay the great country we know and love.

Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 09:29 AM | Permalink

Thorner & O’Neil: Democrats deny dangers of Islamic caliphate

Monday, July 25, 2016

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

If asked to respond to a poll question about what you consider the most serious issue facing American citizens, what would be your reply?

Unfortunately, in a nation that is burdened with a multitude of pressing problems and issues, deciding which is the most troubling might prove to be a difficult choice. However, those who have spent time studying Islamic terrorism in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, countries that promote terrorism, see the threat of radical Islam and a Muslim caliphate to be the most serious issue of today. 

An estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, including 3.3 million here in America, are familiar with the term “caliphate,”  but the majority of Americans know little about its origin, what it entails, and the danger it poses to our country and American families, largely because the media largely ignores the problem.

Caliphate defined  

Muslim groups dismiss the subject of a caliphate, claiming it is of no consequence or danger to them, but it is impossible to know if and when Muslim extremists are being truthful.  Why?  Because a key doctrine in orthodox Islam is “aqiyya,” a term which allows Muslims to lie, mislead, and deceive (aka dissimulation) in order to defend the individual Muslim or Islam itself.  Consequently, many Islamists who appear to be “moderates” turn out to be “radicals” after all.  Therefore, rather than depend upon rhetoric, America must  closely examine facts and actions. 

Jihad can take many forms when subjects such as politics, finance, propaganda, physical violence and acts of terror can be justified when the cause is for Islamic jihad.  That is how “violent jihadis” (throat slitting, shootings, beheadings, and bombings) are justified, as is “financial jihadis” (financing violent jihadi efforts), and “political jihad” (promoting so-called “hate speech” legislation prohibiting people with facts from exposing the truth regarding Islam).  It is likely that many of those who claim to be “moderates” in truth practice one or more of these types of jihad.

Particularly troubling is the caliphate and those who promote it.  In Islamic history, the caliphate was viewed as a just leadership that facilitated the practice of the faith. The caliph was the political leader who led an empire and was viewed as the successor to the Prophet Muhammad.  This model was disbanded in the early 20th century and replaced by a version which is practiced in different ways depending upon how literal the leader decides to interpret Sharia. 

The last caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, sold non-Muslim girls as sex slaves, some as young as twelve. Men raped and enslaved non-Muslim women as a reward for fighting and spreading Islam. That is still practiced within pockets of specific Muslim extremist groups.

The Caliphate Curve

There is a term called the “caliphate curve.”  It is based on how quickly an Islamic group wants to achieve the ultimate caliphate.  ISIS is at the extreme end of the curve, as it embraces torture, murder, and rapes; practices ethnic cleansing; and condones sexual slavery of non-Muslims.  Much of this happened during the last caliphate and was considered acceptable behavior.  On the other end of the curve is the Muslim Brotherhood.  This Muslim group has chosen to bring in the caliphate gradually over time using more modern political methods.  However, the Muslims’ ultimate goal is to conquer the World for Islam and complete the caliphate.  

No matter where a Muslim group chooses to be within the caliphate curve, they all agree the World, including the United States, must be ruled by Muslims under Islamic law.  If that should happen, it would be the end of freedom and equal rights and the beginning of enslaving men and women to their Islamic extreme religious concept.

The World has seen evidence of this extremism through the actions of those who practice an intense version of the caliphate.  Sunni Muslims may disagree with Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s worldview and in so doing can expect retaliation.  That was demonstrated in a recent massacre of Iraqi soldiers who were moderate Syrian rebels.  Countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia are concerned about the more strict interpretation of the caliphate being advanced in their nation, as both these countries are considered moderate Muslims nations and want to remain as such. 

It is important for the free World to begin speaking out more strongly against the dangers of those who are already practicing an extreme version of Islam.  Treating terrorism as isolated attacks by fanatics must cease!  Terrorist acts rooted in Islamic extremism are but precursors to what the World can expect, unless leaders from all freedom loving countries begin to educate their citizens as to the nature of radical Islam and understand who practices it.  Only through this awareness can tactics be developed to eliminate the danger to peaceful people. 

It is perplexing why so many of our World leaders continually condone and/or minimize the barbaric  acts associated with groups who admit their end goal is to impose a government that takes away everyone’s rights.  Basically, the caliphate is not much different in practice to that of Communism.  Each deprives subjects their rights and ultimate freedom. 

The consequences of reduced fertility rates in much of world

A top Iman, Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, recently spoke at the l-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem saying that the Muslim immigrants were being accepted in Europe only because they were needed as a source of labor.  He went on to say the migrants should use the crisis to breed with European citizens and thus conquer their countries by trampling them underfoot, Allah willing.

Sheikh Muhammad Ayed has tapped into a truism.  People are living longer and having less children.  There were warnings that the World was being over-populated.  These factors caused a new problem and the consequences is that much of the world — especially most developed countries — have fallen below the “replacement” fertility rate.  For instance Italy’s fertility rate is now about 1.3.  America’s total fertility rate is around 1.9 babies per woman, a historic low, but near the replacement rate of 2.1. Women need to average two babies for the population size to be stable.

There is hypocrisy in a new White House report on why low-skill men have been dropping out of the labor force.  The main conclusion is that labor-force dropout is due primarily to a decline in the availability of low-skill jobs.  This is at odds with what the administration has been claiming for years, that the U.S. must have guest workers and amnesty for illegal immigrants in part because of “a lack of available workers” for low-skill jobs in industries such as agriculture and food service.

Ignoring borders presents problems as foreign workers’ bring with them a different culture which can clash with the host country. To avoid serious issues, France has allowed migrants to develop “No Go Zones” where Muslim immigrants have taken over entire blocks by driving out French citizens.  Shockingly, these areas are often hostile to the French, causing police to avoid the area.  Instead of attempting to assimilate, radicals show their ingratitude by killing Frenchmen in terrifying massacres.  While all Muslims are not violent, it is troubling that they do not report those who are.

A few Frenchmen are beginning to speak the truth, such as Alexis Brezet who wrote in Le Figaro: “Merah, Charlie, Bataclan , Magnanville, and now Nice. How long before our eyes are opened? How many wild attacks, indiscriminate massacres before our leaders admit that Islamist fanaticism initiated a fight to the death against our country and our civilization?”

Political correctness guides this nation

America can no longer condone “political correctness” from its citizens.  We risk inviting the same horrendous tragedies we see in Europe.  Our leaders must identify and address the growing problem of Muslim extremism.  President Obama is adverse to stating the extent Islamic radical ideology is growing; calling obvious Muslim terror attacks “workplace violence.”  He may have good reasons for downplaying the tragedies, but doing so has created problems.  Citizens have neglected to report suspicious circumstances which might have prevented the slaughter of innocent people by radicals.

Muslims plan to take over major cities such as Alexandria, Constantine, Jerusalem, Athens, Delhi, as well as in America, not through traditional wars or even jihad, but through colonization.  That is a concern as we witness the mass migration of immigrants throughout Europe and realize our current administration committed to a plan that will immediately resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees here and potentially 85,000 overall.  

It is understandable why American citizens are concerned. Consider Dearborn, Michigan where the Muslim population has now grown to over 40 percent, resulting in clashes as most refuse to assimilate.  An example of the increasing tensions happened when Muslims began throwing rocks at a group who were holding up Christian signs.  The Dearborn police did not arrest the perpetrators, later claiming they did not have sufficient police force to do so. This sounds familiar, as they reflect what is happening in European cities where Muslim populations also refused to assimilate.  Many believe this issue is what influenced the Brexit vote. The English see the problems and want to secure their borders.  We have the same concerns, which may influence the upcoming presidential election.

In addition to the increased tension resulting from the refusal of Muslims to assimilate, most Americans would be shocked to hear that tax money is being spent in Michigan for a Muslim male to support four wives. Watch this video to view this untenable situation.

Why the November, 2016, election is so important?

President Obama has allowed thousands of unvetted Muslims to come to America, and Hillary wants to bring in one million more, even though it is impossible to discern whether they have ties to terrorists.  FBI Director James Comey warned that ISIS has very quickly morphed into a “chaotic spider web” within the US, and young Muslim men are being radicalized within all our states.  The current administration has been dangerously slow in understanding the full extent of this threat to us.

Our forefathers wisely initiated immigration laws for the safety of our people and security of our country.  The law states immigrants must pledge their allegiance to America, assimilate into our culture, and obey our laws. Muslim immigrants have not been required to comply with these basic requirements, because their religion embraces every facet of their lives and some conflict with our customs and laws. 

Liberals have been quick to criticize Donald Trump for calling attention to the border crisis. However, it is an issue that cannot be avoided and one that our new president must aggressively address. Terrorism is a serious problem, as is ISIS and the Islamic caliphate. Our government has a duty to adequately respond to these threats and dangers, with all the power invested to them by our system of laws.

Monday, July 25, 2016 at 08:53 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: FDR’s Handling of a National Security Threat vs. Obama’s

Thursday, July 21, 2016

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

The greatest single external threat to America today is that of radical Islam. It is a national security issue with a political agenda that seeks worldwide domination. Therefore, it is curious that President  Obama and his administration appear unwilling to take the threat seriously, as they have dodged defining even the most obvious acts of terrorism, such as the Fort Hood massacre, by labeling it “workplace violence.” instead. This is not the time for political correctness,  because denying the truth emboldens our enemies while causing our citizens to be hesitant in reporting suspicious behavior. The San Bernardino terrorist attack highlighted that problem, as neighbors saw but did not report the perpetrators strange behavior.  

A shocking poll indicated what U.S. Muslims think of U.S. laws. Data from a survey of 600 U.S. Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed:

• 51%  agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia laws.

 Perhaps most frightening, 25% of those polled agreed:

• [V]iolence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.

What is Sharia Law? Why does it matter what American Muslims believe or think? 

Sharia is utterly incompatible with the concepts of human rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The following are some liberty-crushing, dehumanizing Sharia sanctions: 1. open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; 2. rejection of bedrock western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; 3. discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to be outcasts, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to be considered subservient chattel; and 4. barbaric punishments which violate human dignity such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

How would a Muslim come to believe that such behavior is acceptable in Islam? The better question is “where would a Muslim learn that such behavior is NOT acceptable in Islam?”  Consider that this behavior is being taught by Muslim Imams in prominent U.S. Islamic schools and mosques.

Should concern exist over a flood of Muslim refugees?

The concern regarding the above teachings of Islam is compounded by a flood of Muslim refugees from Syria, an average of 358 per week to be exact, that started arriving in the United States in April of this year and will end at the completion of this fiscal year on September 30.  This “surge” in Syrian refugees, their fast-tracking, was implemented by the Obama administration to make good on its commitment to bring in 10,000 by the end of September, 2016.

It matters not that the FBI has said it cannot vet Syrians for jihadi connections or sympathies because Syria is a “failed state.” Even Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has said that the threat of ISIS infiltrating America by hiding among Syrian refugees is a “huge concern.” ISIS has very publicly warned it will do just that, further claiming to have 4,000 fighters in Western Europe already.

What would you think if unvetted Muslims were guarding US power plants?  A firm, Veterans Security, or Vet/Sec for short, are tasked with providing security for some of America’s most sensitive infrastructures, such as power plants.  Historically, the firm hired almost exclusively American veterans, but increasingly they are hiring unvetted Muslim immigrants to provide security at these sensitive locations. Amazingly, the firm is receiving $1200 from the government to hire these workers. Some barely speaks English.  There is nothing wrong with hiring Muslims to guard American infrastructure as long as they are citizens and have passed an extensive background, but if the government cannot screen these immigrants, neither can Veterans Security

FDR deals with national security during WWII

FDR faced a national security threat during WWII.  Political correctness did not rule the day for Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s top concern was the safety of every American citizen and he chose to handle the threat from that point of view.  (As a disclaimer:  “It should be noted that Roosevelt made questionable decisions as president, some of which proved to be detrimental to our country.”)

Elizabeth Clarke, a patriot and friend who died in her Lake Forest home at 98, wrote this story about FDR and the internment camps for Japanese Americans, which she shared with the authors before her death on July 2, 2016.  Elizabeth’s heartfelt desire was that the information be passed down to future generations. Elizabeth and her family lived through this difficult time in which America was attacked, providing a personal viewpoint that very few have today. 

Elizabeth’s Account

I was there in California in 1941.  After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. immediately started to defend itself, we we found out that someone was telling the Japanese Emperor about our shipping, when the ships left port, what they were carrying, how big they were, and other strategic information.  There were several attacks against California by Japanese planes and ships.  The ‘Los Angeles Times” reported some of the events on January 25, 1942.

The Japanese community was asked to help find the spies, but they did not.  So after three months the Japanese people were rounded up and put in the camps that had plenty of food, water, schools, and hospitals.  The boys and men were allowed to join the US military, which let many of them leave.

Later in the war, in 1944, the Japanese developed what were known as “Balloon Bombs.”  The balloons, 9,000 of them, were huge balloons with baskets hanging beneath them containing small bombs. The balloons were launched into the Trade Winds and sent off to the USA.  Because the Japanese were in camps and not able to tell the Emperor that his bombs had arrived and were soaring over a large part of the USA, the Emperor, not knowing, didn’t order bigger bombs for the balloons. Weakened for a long time after Pearl Harbor, the US was not winning the war at the time.  Had the scenario been a different one, we might all now be speaking Japanese.The Camps for the Japanese very possibly saved the US from being defeated.

There were mysterious fires over the Western part of the nation which were reported in the newspapers. One family, out picnicking, let their children climb a tree to look at some material that was caught in the tree. There was an explosion and the children were killed.  That is the only death from the balloon bomb, but think what might have happened if the Emperor had known he could kill us with balloons that carried larger bombs. 

On February 1, 1945, a Japanese bomb balloon was spotted by several local residents drifting over the Trinity National Forest area and slowly descending.  No one knew what it was, but an alert forest ranger called the military authorities at the Presidio of San Francisco and reported it.   Meanwhile the balloon came to rest atop a 60 food dead fir tree in the forest near a local road.  Upon examination the balloon bomb still had on board four incendiary bombs and one high explosive bomb and the bomb releasing mechanism was still very much intact.  It later proved to be one of the mot intact bombing balloons to fall into American hands.  As usual in instances of this sort, the local people were told what it was and were asked to keep secret what they had seen.  At the time the Media was “on our side.”

Additional Balloon Bomb Information

Bert Webber wrote a book called “Silent Siege – III”, with much information about the balloon bombs.  In his book, which Elizabeth Clarke gave to Nancy Thorner, are maps where the bombs landed and much detail about them.  The first printing of Webber’s book was in December of 1992.

The Klamath County Museum and a Balloon Museum in Albuquerque have exhibits of the fire balloons.  According to the curator of the Albuquerque museum, Marilee Mason, “It was one of the greatest secrets of the war. These days it would be over the internet in a minute.”  

In 2004 Michelle Malkin was interviewed by Front Page magazine about her newly published book, “In Defense of Interment: The Case for “Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror”. Here is her interview.  As to be expected, Malkin’s political views are not appreciated by many in the liberal media, and thus this author and her book received a heavy dose of criticism.

Common Sense must replace political correctness

The authors are not recommending that American Muslims be rounded up because of a possible national security threat as FDR perceived Japanese Americans to be during WWII.   Nor would it be possible in this age of political correctness in which the Obama administration will not define those who have declared war against us as Radical Islamic terrorists.

Nevertheless, curtailing the flood of Syrian Muslim refugees into this nation when vetting is not possible and when it has been documented that Islamic terrorist are likely being slipped in amongst the refugees, it would seem  common sense should prevail, as it did during our war with Japan.  Perhaps  Investing in safe zones for the refugees would be appropriate.  What was Obama’s response when Merkel of Germany backed the safe zone idea in April of this year?  He indicated that safe zones would not work.

Perhaps our president should at least review what worked for Roosevelt.

Part 1:  Wednesday, July 20, 2016 – Thorner & O’Neil – ISIS declares war while world succumbs to political correctness

Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 03:16 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: FDR, Illinois Review, Japanese Interment Camps

Comments

Frank J. Biga III said…

Amazing how conservative FDR seems in comparison to today’s Democratic Party. Maybe he wasn’t that bad after all? He did support unions though so that makes him am apostate from today’s so-called “conservative” values. No, I think FDR and the America he helped create are what we should strive for today. Our ancestors weren’t idiots. Many of the pro-middle class values and policies of FDR need to be fought for today, even if they violate the shibboleths of modern day conservatives.

Reply Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 03:31 PM