Blog Posts

The Flag

7/18/2015

The Confederate flag was recently taken down from South Carolina's State Capital
and other State grounds. There is even a move to transfer the interred remains of
a Confederate General and his wife to a private cemetery. If these things, as well
as the names of some sports teams, are so offensive to certain segments of our
citizenry, then why stop here?

Why not strike down the American flag (it is already being burned and trampled on
with impunity by witless protestors)? Does it not, like the Confederate Flag, fly over
a country that once condoned slavery? Many of our Founding Fathers owned slaves.

Is there any country in this world that can claim to have never in its history enslaved,
or committed other acts of oppression and brutality against its own people, or the
peoples of other states? I dare say, NONE.

Thus, if we are to remain consistent with our rationale for striking the Confederate
flag, then the Stars and Stripes, and every other flag in the world must come down,
including that of the United Nations; which represents most of them.

Ridiculous? Exactly my point!

The Confederate Flag

7/5/2015

Islam Unveiled by Vito Tomasino

3/5/2015

       An Arab woman seen in a Youtube video was publically condemned by her father and shot by her brother to preserve the family's honor, as they, and a group of armed men shouted Allah al akbah (God is great). Her crime? To be seen in public without a veil.
       Such barbaric “justice” is not an exception to rules of Islam, the so-called religion of peace, it is the rule. ISIS, Al Queda, Hammas, Hezbolah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boka Harram, et. al., are not anomalies of Islam, they are the tip of the spear pointed
at the heart of every non-believer on this planet.
       The assumption, that listening to their grievances and giving them jobs will deter them from their goal of cleansing the world of all infidels and establishing an Islamic Caliphate, is a dangerous one to make.
       The belief, that making a deal with Iran, the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world—one that would give them legal permission to produce nuclear weapons in
ten years—would soften the will of the Ayatollahs and stop their drive to achieve the above stated goals, is not only naïve, it is suicidal!

       IF WE GIVE THEM THE BOMB, THEY WILL USE IT!!!

        To all of my Arab/Muslim friends out there who may read this e-mail, I am sorry that I have had to use such strong words in an effort to expose Jihad for what it is...
the real danger it poses for all peoples of the world, including more than a billion Muslims; the vast majority of whom want nothing more than to live in peace and freedom.
       But peace is not a gift, and freedom is not free, it must be won. To paraphrase
the words of an American revolutionary by the name of Benjamin Franklin, who put his life and treasure at risk—as did so many others of his time: "If we do not stand together, we will surely hang together!"

Ebola Travel Ban

10/19/2014

My reply to Congressman Trey Gowdy's letter urging the President to impose a travel ban from
Ebola affected countries:

Dear Congressman Gowdy:

I read your letter to the President urging a ban on travel for all foreign nationals who have been
in one of the Ebola affected countries within the last two months, and I agree that a travel ban is
urgently needed if we are to have any hope of averting a full scale outbreak of the disease in the
United States. I would also widen that ban to include all countries that share a border with Liberia
Sierra Leone, and Guinia.

However, we can achieve the same level of protection against its spread without imposing a total
ban on travel by simply making all potential travelers from those aforementioned countries undergo
a two month quarantine before being allowed to board the airplane. Prior to reading your letter I
believed the maximum incubation period for Ebola was 21 days, as Dr. Frieden and other medical
experts and government officials have been telling us.

While A 21 day quarantine may well have worked, two months would be far more problematic,
impractical perhaps. Nonetheless, removing the harsh reality a total ban imposes on all parties
may at least make a partial ban more palatable, even to a reluctant President.

Why President Obama is dragging his feet on issuing an order for a full or partial ban is an interesting
question, but unimportant. It is his constitutional duty to do everything in his power to protect the
citizens of our nation.

Respectfully:

Vito Tomasino

THE ISIS THREAT

9/13/2014

                                             THE ISIS THREAT

                                                   by Vito Tomasino

We are engaged in a struggle against those who demand that we renounce
our beliefs and values and embrace theirs, or die. This is their clearly stated,
uncompromising position, and no amount of reasoned discussion—diplomacy,
if you will—will change it.

THIS IS WAR…on a level, and of a scale we have not faced in modern times. Moreover, this enemy will not be satisfied with the mere acquisition of
territory, or even world domination. Their ultimate goal is an earth cleansed
of all non-believers in their warped brand of Islam, and they are ready to
sacrifice their own lives—every man, woman, and child—to achieve it.

Indeed, if they should ever acquire weapons of mass destruction
they will use them, even if it means the annihilation of all life on
this planet.

Thus, if we are not prepared to commit to this struggle with the same degree
of intensity, and with the full might of our military, we will lose this war!

The Sterling Controversy

5/13/2014

by Vito Tomasino

The N, F, MF, B, C, and every foul word you can think of, as well as lyrics
suggesting that cops be killed and women raped, are regularly used by
Black American rappers who make millions of dollars in CD sales, and are
showered with awards for their depraved work.

A white American businessman who happens to own a successful professional
basketball franchise employing hundreds of people, who has made millionaires
of his black players, makes a relatively inane remark in a private argument with
his girlfriend about her being seen in public with Blacks, and he is condemned
as a RACIST, banned from the NBA for life, fined $2,500,000, and pressured to
sell his team—all without a fair hearing, or his constitutional right to due process.

Is there a double standard here, or am I just paranoid? How many more white
people have to be sacrificed on the altar of “political correctness” before we are
all paranoid?

Donald Sterling denies he is a racist and his estranged girl friend supports him
on this. But, even if he is, what law has he broken? Does he not have the same
freedom to exercise his first amendment rights as our rapper musicians? And
how do you reconcile the public protest of illegal aliens who defiantly raised the
flag of Mexico overhead while they trampled “Old Glory,” as the Phoenix Police
look on?

Before the video tape of his private remarks were made public—without his
knowledge or permission— the NAACP were about to present Mr. Sterling with
a “lifetime achievement award” for his many generous contributions to their
cause—and, I would note, to the campaigns of many California Democrats.
Ironically, they too were compelled to shun their benefactor and rescind the
award in a reverse act of political correctness. Later, in a public announcement,
representatives of the NAACP were quick to make clear, that while they censure
Mr. Sterling’s remarks, they forgive him. “After all, everyone makes mistakes,”
they said.

Am I just being cynical, or could it be, that they were just trying to insure the
continued support of a very rich and powerful supporter for them and the
Democratic Party.

And where is the outraged voice of President Obama, who was so quick to weigh
in on the altercation between the Boston Police and a Black Harvard professor,
and again in the Trayvon Martin case? The silence from the White House is telling.

I don’t know Mr. Sterling, nor am I a fan of his basketball team, but I would defend
his right to speak his mind however distasteful his words may be to others. The
civil rights legislation of the 1960’s has righted much of the injustice done to Blacks
and other minorities in this country, but no law can eliminate the racism so deeply
rooted in the human psyche. Only our continuing evolution as human beings can
correct that inherent flaw.

A final point. If Donald Sterling has his day in court, I suspect there may be a few
other owners of professional ball teams out there anxiously awaiting the outcome.

Well, You Did It Again

10/5/2013

by Vito Tomasino

Well, you did it again, shut down the Government. For that you incurred the wrath of the
nation, and deservedly so. And for what? What did the Republican party hope to gain by
attaching amendments to the spending bill that they knew in advance would not even be
allowed on the floor of the Senate, much less be passed and signed by the President? If
there is a reasonable, non-political answer to that, I'd like to hear it.

Politics, a wily old pol once said—it could have been Tip O’Neil—is the art of doing the
possible--words of wisdom that members of both parties would do well to heed. Having
said that, it's only fair that I be asked to explain where "the possible" lies in this made
made in Washington crisis?

The answer could not be more simple. Give Obama everything he wants, and more.
Hear me out.

The President will not allow The Affordable Health Care Act to be modified or curtailed
in any way by amendments to the spending bill, and I agree with him. It should not be.
Any law passed by Congress, signed by the President of the United States, and upheld
by the Supreme Court must be fully implemented as written. Our Constitution
demands it.

Are we not a nation of laws? Moreover, the President of the United States is as duty
bound to uphold those laws as any American citizen.

There is a process by which Congress can enact legislation to change an existing law,
but holding the United States Government hostage in a futile attempt to expose the
shortcomings of President Obama's signature legislation is not it.

Here is my proposal: House Republicans should—along with any Democrats who
may want to co-sponsor it—submit a new bill to the Senate which would fully fund
the government; one that includes an amendment demanding the full and immediate
implementation of The Affordable Health Care Act without exception or delay granted
to any person or any entity.

Once the bill passes the House—in what I believe will be a successful bi-partisan effort—
Speaker Boehner should take the diplomatic initiative in applauding that effort and
encourage his colleagues in the Senate to do the same. He should also make it clear to
the American people, that as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, he will do
everything in his power to see that the laws of the land are upheld by all.

When that bill goes to the Senate—I would suggest raising the debt ceiling at the same
time—Harry Reid will have no recourse but to bring it to the floor for a vote. He and
the President will have everything they asked for in it, and more. It is the “more” part
that will stick in their craw, but they will have no choice but to swallow hard.

As for Obamacare, if, in fact, it is a train wreck waiting to happen, the sooner it wrecks
the better for us to make it right. If it does, who loses? A few disgruntled Republicans
and Democrats, and an outmaneuvered President who will be contemplating his “lame
duckness” for the next three years.

Either way, who wins? The rest of us!

DECEPTION AND LIES

9/23/2013

by Vito Tomasino

While I am relieved that limited missile strikes against the Assad regime have been put
on hold—at least until the current diplomatic effort has run its course—I question the
wisdom of trusting a man like Putin to resolve the issue in anyone's favor but his.

He threw President Obama a lifeline that would allow him to back away from his empty
"red-line" threat and he bit. Then he had the temerity to lecture our President on American
exceptionalism in a New York Times op-ed piece. How can anything positive result from
this recent display of weakness by the President?

I wish members of Congress all the best in resolving this, and the current debt ceiling
issue in the coming weeks, not to mention the other so-called "phony scandals" such as:
the NSA recording of cell phone calls, IRS targeting of Republican political groups, Fast
and Furious, and, of course, Benghazi.

"What difference at this point does it make?" These were the words practically screamed
out by Hillary Clinton in frustration over her inability respond with plausible answers to
the questions put to her by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigating
the Benghazi tragedy. To most Americans, particularly the families of the four men killed
that night, it makes all the difference in the world, Madame Secretary.

Why did the Secretary of State, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sit on their hands and do nothing, as they
watched the slaughter of four brave Americans on a live television feed? Indeed, why was
a rescue team, ready to leave Tripoli within an hour of the attack, and F-16 fighter jets based
in Aviano, Italy, that could have been over Benghazi in four hours, ordered to stand down?
By whom? Does anyone other than the Commander-in-Chief have the authority to sanction
such an order?

The American people deserve to know the truth of what happened in Benghazi. It was
obviously not a spontaneous response to an obscure Youtube video critical of the Prophet
Mohammed posted months before, as we were told by Susan Rice, Mrs. Clinton, and the
President himself. Anyone in the Situation Room, who watched events unfold in Benghazi
in real time, knew it was a planned attack by trained, well armed terrorists.

Why the lies? To answer that question one need only look at who stood to benefit by their
telling.

The President won his bid for a second term, Ms. Rice has since been promoted to National
Security Advisor—no doubt a disappointment, but one that may still be rectified if, or when
the Benghazi fiasco can safely be put to rest— and Mrs. Clinton was never called to task for
the arrogance and insensitivity she displayed before the Senate Committee. Instead, she has
been awarded the Liberty Medal for her outstanding service—presented to her by Jeb Bush,
a Republican—and is being touted as the next President of the United States.

I believe I speak for the majority of angry Americans who do understand the difference it
makes, and are tired of the deception and lies coming from our government, when I ask:
What in the name of reason and sanity is going on?

TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB

9/14/2013

                                                       To Bomb Or Not To Bomb
                                                             by Vito Tomasino

To bomb, or not to bomb Syria is the question, but is it the one we should be debating?
The Obama administration and the other hawks in both parties support a limited strike
in retaliation for Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons. They say they have proof that
chemical weapons were used, and used by his government.

Indeed, their use has been confirmed by the UN inspection team. The evidence also
suggests that they came from Syrian military controlled areas; but is that conclusive
proof they were fired by them? Should we not consider the possibility, that mortar, or
rocket delivered chemical weapons—given to the rebels by their supporters—could have
been launched by them from government held territory? I believe it is a very real
possibility and, unless it can be absolutely ruled out, the case to bomb Syria is put in
serious question.

An important point, not yet made by anyone engaged in this debate, is that of motive.
Who stands to gain and who stands to lose by the use of such weapons? Why, it should
be asked, would Assad invite the wrath of U.S. Air power and concede the overwhelming
advantage he enjoys over the rebels in manpower and arms. Why indeed? He has already
killed more than one hundred thousand of his people with conventional bombs, bullets
and rockets, and is winning the war. To use chemical weapons now makes no rational
sense. Assad has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

The rebels, on the other hand, have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Forcing
President Obama to make good on his “red-line” threat and unleash American air power
against the Syrian government could tip the balance in their favor. Should Obama so act,
he would no doubt also release the weapons currently being held back from the rebels
and, once committed, is not likely stop with one quick strike, but continue until the
Assad regime is brought down.

Should that be the result, what then will Syria become in the hands of a rebel group
that includes among its more organized factions, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Debt Ceiling: A False Crisis

8/24/2013

                                            The Debt Ceiling: A False Crisis
                                                       by Vito Tomasino

The President has stated his willingness to consider all ideas regarding ways to cut deficit
spending and tackle the problem of a growing national debt; which, left unchecked, would
threaten another downgrade of our credit rating in a fragile economy. He has also made it
very clear, that raising the federal debt limit was not open to negotiation, and that he would
not be held hostage by Republican leaders who would use the threat of a government shutdown
to push their fiscal agenda.

I believe the President would indeed allow the government to be shut down, and our credit
rating downgraded, rather than give in to Republican demands for significant spending cuts
and entitlement reform—neither of which he wants, though both are absolutely needed.
Do the Republicans have the courage to call the President’s bluff? I don’t think so. Last year,
when they confronted him on the so-called “fiscal cliff,”they caved in to his demands at the
last minute; then rationalized their concession by convincing themselves that—given the debt
ceiling deadline—they would have more leverage to force his acquiescence. They were wrong.
Their bluff did not work then and it will not work now. What then, should they do?

Someone once said, “Politics is the art of doing the possible.” Why not start there. Take
Obama at his word. Give him what he wants; i.e., raise the debt ceiling, and do it soon, not
at the eleventh hour. We all know it will be raised, so why waste time debating the issue and
give the President a convenient excuse for not addressing the spending problem? Moreover,
it should be raised high enough so that we need not be concerned with it for the next two
years, thus clearing the table for meaningful fiscal reforms in spending, entitlements, revenue
enhancement via a simplified tax code, and a thorough overhaul of regulations hindering
business investment.

Speaker Boehner should form a bi-partisan committee within the House of Representatives
to write a bill offering viable, thoroughly vetted solutions to the above issues--one containing
many recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Such a bill would have the best
chance of passing the House with Democrat and Republican support, and of reaching the floor
of the Senate for a vote. The President could not stop it without contradicting his own statement
regarding spending cuts and forfeiting his political capital, making him a true “lame duck.”

Congress, on the other hand, would regain much of its lost public confidence and reclaim its
role as one of the key federal branches envisioned by our founding fathers as being necessary
to insure that our democracy remains true to the people it serves.