Right back at ya', George!

George Francis of Dallas disagrees with those who feel our immigration laws should be enforced. He says, "Unless you are a 100 percent descendant of the Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux, Algonquian, Apache, Karankawa, Aleut, Comanche, Ute, etc., you just need to be quiet."

Until you show us your family tree, right back at ya', George!

"Denying our history." The Dallas Morning News; February 11, 2014; p. 10A.

Maybe it's not the braids.

Black women in the military are upset at the new personal appearance rules in the army regulations. They say the rules are racially biased, because they do not allow dreadlocks, multiple braids, twists, etc. So they're getting up a petition to send to Obama to relax the rules.

"I don't see how a woman wearing three braids in her hair, how that affects her ability to perform her duty in the military," said Patricia Jackson Kelley of the National Association of Black Military Women.

Maybe the braids don't, but Patricia's attitude might make her unfit for the military. It used to be that the Army was all about obeying orders whether you agreed with them or not. That made a good soldier. What if Patricia gets into a combat zone, and her commander tells his troops to take a certain position, but Patricia doesn't see how taking that position will further the mission, so she starts a petition to get him to change his mind?

Maybe Patricia doesn't see a valid reason for the regulation on braids, but that doesn't matter. The reality is that there is no valid reason for her not to obey the regulation. If her hair is a problem, she can cut it short -- it'll grow back.

By the way -- we have an all volunteer army now. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to sign up.

"Black women say hair rule biased." The Dallas Morning News; April 6, 2014; p. 6A.

Media Spin

Do you think more people on Medicaid is a good thing? I don't. It means the taxpayers are supporting more people they can't afford to support and our country is going deeper and deeper into debt.

But the media evidently thinks it's wonderful -- check out this headline and see if you agree:

"Obamacare helps boost Medicaid rolls: Enrollment up by 3 million since late last summer."

"The increase in Medicaid enrollments across the country is encouraging," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Am I missing something here? Doesn't that mean that we have 3 million more people who are so destitute they can't pay their own way? Why is that encouraging?

"Obamacare helps boost Medicaid rolls." The Dallas Morning News; April 5, 2014; p. 4A.

Where did they get those knives?

The media went a little nutty on the gun shop in Killeen that sold the gun to the man who committed the latest mass murder at Ft. Hood. Perhaps if we did away with the nutty law that says army personnel can't carry weapons on base, we wouldn't have to worry so much about no one being able to stop the nuts who bring guns onto the base despite the law.

Anyway, they've made a big deal about this being the same gun shop where Nidal Hassan bought his gun. That the two would buy guns from the same shop is not all that surprising since it is in close proximity to Ft. Hood.

I noticed in a recent edition of the paper several different reports of murders and attempted murders. There was Khyla Thomas who stabbed her brother to death. There was Mark McCay who was stabbed outside his business nine times by a stranger who fled. Then there was Anthaneta Bush who pulled a 6-inch steak knife from her purse and stabbed a 61-year-old man in a motel parking lot. And a trespasser at a downtown Dallas wrecking lot, Cobi Ben Bullard, stabbed the employees who were escorting him off the premises. And those are the reports from just one day.

But nowhere have I seen an outcry against the proliferation of knives, or demands to know where these people bought the knives, or demands that knives be registered. If we're going to get serious about dangerous weapons, shouldn't we be serious about all of them?

For that matter, there was recently a case tried where a woman stabbed her boyfriend 25 times in the face with the stiletto heel of her shoe. Wonder if she had a concealed wearing license for stilettos? Shouldn't there be a waiting period in the shoe departments at Neiman Marcus, Macy's, and Dillard's?

If employers don't provide contraceptive coverage, they are subjecting their employees to Sharia law.

Kate French says that if employers are not forced to provide free contraceptives to their employees, it's the same as a muslim subjecting them to Sharia law.

Kate and all the others who think as she does are missing the main point. Hobby Lobby and those other employers who don't want to provide free contraceptives aren't prohibiting their employees from getting them.

How would Kate feel if Obama passed a law requiring her to provide Bibles for all her employees? If she doesn't do that, she'll be violating their 1st Amendment right to own a Bible.

"What's next, Islamic law?" The Dallas Morning News; March 28, 2014; p. 16A.

Who's footing the bill?

Stephen Foote of McKinney says that it is no violation of employers' rights to force them to buy contraception they believe is a sin. Stephen says that is backward thinking. "Employee health insurance does not belong to the employer," he says.

Maybe not, but the employer is paying for it. I've used this illustration before, but here's the twist Stephen's erroneous thinking adds. Suppose I don't believe in drinking, and I take my friend out for dinner. I tell him it's my treat and he may order anything he likes except that I won't pay for an alcoholic drink, because I don't believe in imbibing. However, I add, he won't offend me if he wants to buy his own drink. My friend says, "You have no right to refuse to pay for my drink, because it doesn't belong to you."

If that happened to you, you'd swear your friend just escaped from the loony bin. And you'd probably be right.

"Rick Warren is wrong." The Dallas Morning News; March 30, 2014; p. 2P.

Why did you get married?

Why did you get married? Was it because you were "eager to be part of history"?

That's the reason given by two queer guys who recently "married" in England.

I married for several reasons, but I don't think that one ever occurred to me.

By the way -- look at that headline. Do you really think these guys are the "first British gays"? Would that it were so!!

"First British gays marry." The Dallas Morning News; March 29, 2014; p. 12A.