Posts Tagged: The Alan Stock Show

Jul 14

Alan Stock’s KDWN Interview With Aryeh Green of Media Central

I had the chance to interview Aryeh Green of Media Central on June 20, 2014. They exist to set the record straight on news reports as events warrant.

To listen to the entire 41 minute interview, go to:

Jun 14

Tony Orlando Visits Families of Missing Teens

Tony Orlando, the popular 1970s American pop singer, said he visited the families of three Israeli teens missing in the West Bank, and called on his fans to hang three yellow ribbons in solidarity with the youths.

For the rest of this ABC News story, go to:

Jun 14

Travis is the Pet Pick of the Week for 6-27-2014

***ADOPTED*** Remarkably cute boy, Smooth Fox & Jack Russell Terrier mix, neutered, 6 years.

He is recovering very well from emaciation/starvation.
We love his magical eyes and excitable jumping and bouncing.
An active lifestyle routine is ideal.
He may be fine with some dogs, but needs to be fed separately.

Jun 14

Silvia Rose is the Pet Pick of the Week 6-13-2014

***ADOPTED*** Especially endearing young girl, Cairn & Yorkshire Terrier mix, spayed, 18 months.

She is very lovable and humble.
She gets along well with other dogs.
Gentle home ideal. She is shy with new people.

Jun 14

Pascal is the Pet Pick of the Week for 6-6-2014

***ADOPTED*** Very lovable young boy, Bichon Frise mix, neutered, 2 years.

He has a wonderfully sweet disposition.
He enjoys other sweet dogs.
Please plan and budget for regular professional grooming.

May 14

Jessica is the Pet Pick of the Week for 5-30-2014

***ADOPTED*** Effervescent youngster, gorgeous Pomeranian, spayed girl, 3 years.

Jessica is terrific with people (including mature kids) and dogs.
She is reportedly housetrained.
Please plan and budget for regular professional grooming.

May 14

Monticello is the Pet Pick of the Week for 5-16-2014

Pensive, enlightened boy, handsome Longhair Chihuahua, neutered, 8 years.

He is thoughtful and has a noble demeanor.
He is good with other friendly dogs.
He needed us when his previous owner died.

May 14

Marriage and the Republican Party

The Nevada Republican Party recently removed from its platform references to gay marriage and abortion, two divisive social issues.

The response from Carolyn L. McLarty, the Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma was swift and negative. She slammed Nevada’s actions and urged party leaders not to allow other state parties to take similar actions.

McLarty went on to write, “The Nevada GOP action to remove marriage and life from their platform is a disgrace. The move does nothing to unify the Republican Party. Republicans will continue to lose elections if we can’t even stand for protecting the most vulnerable lives among us; or for keeping sacred five thousand plus years of natural human sexuality. Both are direct attacks on God and the family.”

I will address the abortion issue in a future writing. But right now I am going to tackle the so-called “gay marriage” issue and suggest the direction that the Republican Party should take if they want to appeal to those on the right and left wings of the political spectrum who truly believe in freedom and limited government.

Marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and was seen as a strategic alliance between families. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister.

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history and Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. Monogamy did not become the guiding principle for Western marriages until sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries.

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it until 1215 when the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s).
In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

By the 17th century, many of the Protestant European countries had an informal state involvement in marriage.

The Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753, popularly known as Lord Hardwicke’s Act, marked the official beginning of state involvement in marriage in England.

The Marriage Act of 1836 allowed for non-religious civil marriages to be held in register offices. These were set up in towns and cities across England and Wales. The act also meant nonconformists and Catholic couples could marry in their own places of worship, according to their own rites.

In Germany, civil marriages were recognized in 1875.

Today many European and Latin American countries require a religious ceremony must be held separately from a required civil ceremony.

In the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain both ceremonies can be held together. The person officiating at the religious and civil ceremony also serves as an agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony.

I mention all of this because the state of marriage – not just the definition – has changed over time. Marriage is not the same institution that it was for our biblical forefathers or as it was at the outset of Western Civilization.

Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald has stated that modernizing the party to appeal to more voters is long overdue. He is correct. There is a formula that I believe the GOP should adopt that would appeal to a very large cross section of all political entities and at the same time eliminate internecine Republican squabbles.
Marriage should be taken out of the realm of government involvement. The states, counties and cities should not longer be involved in marriage and should no longer issue marriage licenses.

At the same time a national law (or, if need be a constitutional amendment) should be established to recognize the concept of civil unions that would apply to all couples, and couples only. A man and woman, two men or two women could apply to be registered as a civil union. The designation would allow for the same tax benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance or any other contractual benefits. This means that there would be no governmentally recognized benefits that would apply to one couple while being denied to another couple.

For those couples that want to get married, they would be free to seek out the spiritual leader of their choice. An orthodox rabbi would not marry two men or two women, but a more liberally minded reform rabbi certainly would. A Catholic priest would not marry same sex couples, but a more liberally minded Christian pastor certainly would. I emphasize that these more liberally minded clergy people would because many of them have already come out for what they call gay marriage.

The question of atheist couples getting married without a religious ceremony could also easily be addressed by having them seek out people who are registered with organizations such as the Universal Life Church who would perform the wedding without a religious designation but would include whatever the couple deems to be meaningful to them.

In other words, the meaning and significance of marriage would be up to the individual couples without the state getting involved in the definition of marriage. At the same time, civil unions would allow for all registered couples to access the same legal benefits.

The Republican Party has a history of opposing government regulation and state control of the individual. This is a chance for Republicans to walk the talk.

The Nevada Republican Party issued a statement that if the GOP wants to win elections, the party must stop emphasizing divisiveness and must re-emphasize the “core principles of freedom and limited government.” They are correct. Now Republicans must decide if they want to uphold those core principles or go the way of the Whig Party.

May 14

Mia is the Pet Pick of the Week for 5-9-2014

***ADOPTED*** Sweet little treasure, Miniature Schnauzer mix, spayed girl, 6 years.

She wants to know what a loving, responsible home feels like.
She is good with other dogs.
Please plan and budget for regular professional grooming.
Gentle home ideal.
She is recovering well from severe neglect.

May 14

The “Deniers”

You’ve heard of the “birthers”? They are those people who question where Barack Obama was born. Was it Hawaii? Was it Kenya?

Now let me introduce to you the “deniers”. Who are these deniers?

A denier is defined as one who denies: a denier of harsh realities.

For example:

They are those who deny the IRS targeted conservative, Tea Party and pro-Israel groups who applied for non-profit status. The deniers believe the IRS was simply going after groups who were not being honest as to their political involvement and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the groups who were suspect just goes to show the IRS was doing its job. The deniers suggest that any investigation into allegations that the IRS targeted specific philosophical groups is nothing more than a witch hunt.

Who are these deniers?

They are those who deny the administration did anything untoward in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi in 2012. The deniers believe it doesn’t matter where the president was on the night of the fatal attack. The deniers believe it doesn’t matter who suggested a very poorly made video produced by a man in Cerritos, California motivated the attack on the mission that resulted in the four deaths. The deniers don’t believe it matters who suggested presidential advisor Susan Rice go on a number of television interview programs on the Sunday after the attack stressing that the video was the impetus behind the attacks. The deniers don’t believe it matters that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told one of the fathers of the four who died that the U.S. government would not rest until the maker of the video who caused these deaths was brought to justice. This statement was made days after the killings and as the bodies were being taken off the plane. The deniers believe it doesn’t matter that the White House and State Department would not release emails that were sent back and forth immediately after the deaths. They deny that the recently released emails (resulting from the filing of their release from the Freedom of Information Act) showing there was involvement by the Obama administration as to how the attacks should be portrayed was “old news” and besides “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Who are these deniers?

They believe the Justice Department performing a massive cull of Associated Press reporters’ phone records as part of a leak investigation was either justified and was just no big deal.
Who are these deniers?

They believe the ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme allowing weapons from the U.S. to “walk” across the border into the hands of Mexican drug dealers was something that was hatched in the Bush Administration (it was not). While the ATF lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which were used in crimes, including the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, the botch lies with the local authorities and Terry’s death was the chance he took when signing on to become a Border Patrol agent.
Who are these deniers?

The believe the billions of taxpayer dollars gambled on “green” companies like Solyndra, NextEra, Ener!, Solar Trust and many others was done with the best intentions and that fact that they all went bankrupt should not be a stain on the Obama administration’s ability to discern where tax dollars should go.

Who are these deniers?

They believe the Obama claim that the $6 trillion in new national debt that has accrued under his administration (after he promised to decrease the deficit) was done to fix the harm done to the U.S. economy by the Bush administration.

Who are these deniers?

They believe that while for twenty years Barack Obama sat in the front pew of the church Rev. Jeremiah Wright presided over, he never heard a word of racist, anti-white, anti-American rants come from his pastor.

Who are these deniers?

They believe when the President said you could keep your doctor and your health plan if you liked them, he just didn’t foresee what would happen when Obamacare was implemented and, besides, a lot of what occurred was the fault of insurance companies. They believe that his promise that all American families would see a $2,500 decrease in their health care costs was just a simple miscalculation and, besides those who had greater incomes should sacrifice to support those whose incomes were much less.

The deniers deny that there was any nefarious intent when Obama used taxpayer dollars to bail out the private pension funds of autoworkers’ unions at GM & Chrysler nor was there a problem to illegally ending welfare-to-work requirements passed by Congress. All of this just helped those who really needed help.

Deniers believe that doling out $800 billion in stimulus cash for “shovel-ready” jobs that didn’t exist was a genuine attempt to jump start the economy. The fact that the money just evaporated with no measurable economic benefit is beside the point.

Deniers believe that alienating and isolating Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East was based on a belief that sacrifice has to be made if a peace agreement was to be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians. And they believe that his apologies to Islamists and terrorists for offending them was a genuine necessity since we have done so many horrible things to Muslims which includes killing those who have sought to kill us.

Deniers believe that while Obama staunchly opposed the raising of the national debt limit before he was president, his insistence to raise the debt limit once he became president was the result of his being “a realist” and to fix what the Bush administration had done for eight years.

Deniers believe that Obama’s instruction to Attorney General Eric Holder to stonewall any investigation in the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers was just one silly case, that it was in the past and besides “how many times had whites intimidated blacks at voter locations”.

Deniers believe that if they play the race card every time someone disagrees with Barack Obama, the person who disagrees will back off. Deniers believe that even if his actions are wrong, Obama’s intentions are just and honorable. Denies will back Barack Obama up come hell or high water. The truth be damned. Blind obedience to the left-wing leader of the nation is essential.

Deny any problems, deny any complicity in anything, deny the need to investigate anything, deny the need to look at anything that occurred yesterday or the day before, deny the deniers are denying. Deny. Deniers’ goal accomplished.