Tuesday, December 12, 2017

We’re the Type of Americans They Want to Go Away

John Hawkins  Dec 10, 2017

I am the type of American they want to go away.

I get along with cops, soldiers, preppers and country boys -- the sort of guys who know how to shoot, know how to take care of themselves and would watch your back in a fight if it came to that. I don’t much like the government, but I do like small town government better than government in D.C. If someone has to be in charge, better the sort of guy you can run into at the grocery store who will give you an answer when you want to know why the potholes on your street haven’t been fixed. D.C.’s different. I know the Democrats there hate me because I’m a straight, white, Christian, Southern conservative and the people that run the Republican Party today would only care what I think if I had hundreds of thousands of dollars to give them.

That’s why if I can make trouble for either group, I’m game...............We live in a country run by politicians and bureaucrats who can’t do anything right and yet they think the solution to that problem is to give them even more power over our lives. You feel the same way I do? Then you’re one of the Americans the elites in D.C. want to go away..........To Read More.....

Dear Jonah Still Doesn't Get It

By Christopher Chantrill December 12, 2017

I feel for Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the #NeverTrumpers at Conservatism Inc. The awful truth is that their Resistance to the leftward ratchet has failed, and the world has moved on.

So last week Jonah’s G-File is “ Against One-Thingism complaining that we are becoming like our lefty friends for whom politics is everything, what with Republican and Trump support for Roy Moore, candidate for United States Senator in Alabama and all.

Okay, Jonah, so what is Baldrick’s cunning plan for dishing the left?

Let’s do the Eisenhower thing and make the problem bigger. What do you do when you are faced with a millennarian movement for which politics and power and cultural hegemony is indeed the holy One Thing.

The truth is that you have to come pretty close to your own One Thing. Otherwise you just go under the knout and bend the knee to the One Thingers and their political and cultural commissars, and your children go with the New World Order, as taught by regime thugs in the schools and in entertainment.

That is why the Reformation inspired a Counterreformation, the French Revolution inspired various anti-French Coalitions, the Bolshevik Revolution inspired a movement of anti-Communism, and it wasn’t pretty.

And that is why lefty progressivism has inspired Trumpism. It is no use complaining about life narrowing down to One Thing. We are in another big fight with the left, whether we like it or not........To Read More....

My Take - Tomorrow I'm posting an article about what's wrong with National Review.  Goldberg is an example of what's transpired there.  I read a couple of his books and was thoroughly impressed.  As the years have gone by - not so much any longer - to the point I no longer read his G-File.

The Swamp Against the People

By James Lewis December 12, 2017

Anybody who still believes that there is no Deep State in America might recall three major Deep State rebellions against constitutionally elected administrations in recent history.

1. The Stalin period, when communists, both overt and covert, had deeply infiltrated the State Department; the White House; and, most dangerously, the Manhattan Project of DOD, which built the first two nuclear bombs. At that time, the Communist Party of the USA was directly controlled by Stalin's Comintern in Moscow, the international center for worldwide infiltration, sabotage, espionage, and agitation-propaganda aiming to destroy the United States and its allies. Stalin's Comintern was especially powerful in Hollywood, in universities and the media.

2. The Watergate period, when historically anti-communist President Richard Nixon was destroyed by a revenge campaign, combining the NYT-WaPo media axis with the FBI's Mark Felt and the Democrats (among them Hillary Clinton) to bring down the duly elected president of the U.S. by unconstitutional means. The extra-constitutional office of the special prosecutor was made up at that time, with no constitutional warrant or standing, and indeed in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution (USC Amendments I-IV).

3. Today, we are seeing a third example of an attempted coup d'état by the Deep State and the left-controlled media, both monsters that were never imagined by the Founders.  In 2016, Hillary Clinton was openly endorsed by the Communist Party USA, and Hillary never rejected that endorsement.  That fact speaks for itself.............To Read More......

My Take - Let's not forget Nixon was guilty, but the problem with that is - Bill and Hillary, Comey, Mueller, Lerner, the Podesta's and the rest are far more guilty of more egregious illegal activity than anything Nixon did.  Let's get this right - Nixon was one of the most left wing Presidents in history irrespective of his previous anti-communist stands, and much of the swamp Trump wants to drain originated with Nixon.  But if he'd had been a Democrat he would have never been attacked

Throwing Good Money after Bad Doesn’t Improve Government Schools

December 11, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
 
Whenever I discuss education policy with one of my leftist friends, it usually follows the same script.
They’ll ask whether I want good education for kids. I’ll say yes. They’ll then say we should devote more money to government schools.

I then show them this powerful chart and point out that we’ve been following their approach for 40-plus years and that it hasn’t worked.

Cato Education Chart


None of them has ever had an effective or coherent response.

I then point out that the United States spends far more than other developed nations, on a per-pupil basis. Yet our national test scores are dismal compared to other developed nations.

Once again, none of them has ever had an effective or coherent response.

The simple reality if that giving more money to government schools is a foolish gesture.
Today, we’re going to look at some additional evidence.

Research from the World Bank pours cold water on the notion that more money for teachers leads to better outcomes for students.
…countries sometimes implement large increases in public-sector salaries to attract higher-quality applicants to government jobs and to better motivate existing employees. …understanding the extent to which unconditional pay increases make incumbent public-sector workers more motivated and productive is a key consideration in evaluating the cost effectiveness of such salary increases. …In this paper, we provide experimental evidence on the impact of a large unconditional salary increase on the effort and productivity of incumbent public employees. Our study was conducted in the context of a policy change in Indonesia that permanently doubled the base pay of eligible civil-service teachers… The reform moved teacher salaries from the 50th to the 90th percentile of the college-graduate salary distribution. Civil-service teachers in Indonesia also enjoy generous benefits and high job security, and quit rates were very low even before the pay increase. Thus, the teachers in our study are typical of public-sector employees in many low- and middle-income countries, who hold highly coveted jobs and enjoy a significant wage premium relative to their private-sector counterparts.
So what were the results of this experiment? The good news, as you might expect, is that teachers were quite happy.
The experiment significantly improved measures of teacher welfare: At the end of two and three years of the experiment, teachers in treated schools had higher income, were more likely to be satisfied with their income, and were less likely to report financial stress.
But for those of us who actually want better education for children, the results were not very satisfactory.
…despite this improvement in incumbent teachers’ pay, satisfaction, …the policy did not improve either their effort or student learning. Teachers in treated schools did not score better on tests of teacher subject knowledge, and we find no consistent pattern of impact on self-reported measures of teacher attendance. Most importantly, we find no difference in student test scores in language, mathematics, or science across treatment and control schools. …Finally, we use the school-level random assignment as an instrumental variable for being taught by a certified teacher in a given year, and find no improvement in student test scores from being taught by a certified teacher (relative to students in control schools taught by similar “target” teachers). These effects are also precisely estimated…our results are consistent with other studies finding no correlation between teacher salaries in the public sector and their teaching effectiveness (Muralidharan and Sundararaman 2011, Bau and Das 2017), and with studies finding that contract teachers who are paid much lower salaries than civil-service teachers are no less effective (Muralidharan and Sundararaman 2013, Duflo, Dupas, and Kremer 2015, Bau and Das 2017).
Indonesia is not similar to the United States, so some people will want to dismiss these finding.  But the authors note that U.S.-focused studies have reached the same conclusion.
Our results are consistent with prior studies finding no correlation between in creases in teacher pay and improved student performance in the US (Hanushek 1986; Betts 1995; Grogger 1996).
If giving teachers more money doesn’t work, is it possible that spending more money on facilities will help?

Let’s look at another academic study, published in the Journal of Public Economics, for some insight. Here’s the approach used by the scholars.
In this paper we provide the most comprehensive assessment of achievement effects from school facility investments initiated and financed by local school districts. The first part of the analysis examines the impact of nearly 1400 capital campaigns initiated by 748 school districts in the state of Texas over a 14-year period. …We examine the impact of capital campaigns on student outcomes using information on all tested students in the state over this time period, which includes all 3rd through 8th graders and 10th or 11th graders that take the state’s high school exit exam.
And here are the very disappointing results.
…the second part of the study directly measures the effect of capital investment on students actually exposed to it by analyzing more than 1300 major campus renovations. Controls for lagged individual test scores permit us to address changes in student composition resulting from capital investment, analogous to “value-added” models of teacher effectiveness. With or without this adjustment, we find no evidence of achievement effects of major campus renovations, even for renovations that appear to have generated large improvements in school facility conditions. Our estimates are sufficiently precise such that we can rule out positive effects larger than about 0.02 for math and 0.01 for reading for the first four years following a campus renovation.
By the way, I’m not arguing that pay and facilities are irrelevant. I think the takeaway from these studies is that more money doesn’t help when the underlying structure of the education system is faulty. So long as we have a centralized monopoly, more money isn’t going to help.

Unfortunately, American politicians are part of the problem.

Under President George W. Bush, the federal government spent more money on education and grabbed more control of the sector as part of the so-called No Child Left Behind initiative. That didn’t yield good results.

Under President Barack Obama, the same thing happened. Thanks to Common Core, the federal government spent more money on education and grabbed more control of the sector. That didn’t yield good results.

Indeed, a report last year for the National Center for Policy Analysis notes the dismal impact of the federal government.
Over the years, federal funding of primary and secondary education has increased, while students’ academic performance has flatlined. For instance, the high school reading and math scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress show that student performance has remained flat for the past 20 years… education reform initiatives by several administrations produced, at best, minimal improvements in student performance at a high price to taxpayers. Given its track record, the federal government should get out of the education business. Federal education reforms have failed to achieve their goals and failed to have a positive impact on education performance.
Amen. The Department of Education in Washington should be eliminated. It’s part of the problem.

Let’s close with a Reason video that looks at some absurd examples of how taxpayer money is wasted by the government school monopoly.



P.S. Let’s close with a bit of humor showing the evolution of math lessons in government schools.

P.P.S. If you want some unintentional humor, the New York Times thinks that government education spending has been reduced.

P.P.P.S. And you’ll also be amused (and outraged and disgusted) by the truly bizarre examples of political correctness in government schools.
 

Who Wrote the Book of Fair?

By Rich Kozlovich December 12, 2017

Craig Bannister wrote an article that appeared on the CNS.com News site, entitled, "Poll: Fewer Americans Say Life Is – or Even Should Be –‘Fair’" saying:

"Fewer Democrats and Republicans say life "should" be fair. A new survey of American adults finds that the percent who believe “Life is fair” has fallen over the past year – and the share of those who think life even “should” be fair has declined, as well. The nationwide survey by YouGov shows that only 29% of Americans now say life is fair, down from 38% in December of 2016. And, while Republicans are more likely than Democrats to view life as fair, both saw a drop in optimism since last year."

The article then goes on to break it down in the following categories. First, "Life is Fair". The number of those who thought life was fair emerged in the following manner. Republicans: 39%, Down from 47%, Democrats: 26%, Down 34%. Total: 29%, Down from 38%.

Then under the category, "Life SHOULD Be Fair", the numbers were: Republicans: 45%, Down from 58%, Democrats: 63%, Down from 70%. Total: 55%, Down from 63%, with 20% sayi9ng “Life shouldn’t be fair” – and "25% weren’t sure." Naturally income played an important role in all of these views, however - it's clear the one thing this poll didn't do is ask everyone to define the word "fair".

It's been my experience what's fair is based on who's ox is being gored. Who exactly wrote the Book of Fair? There is no Book of Fair and it can't be codified without being unfair to someone, anyone or most for that matter. Who decides what's fair? I certainly don't want some government bureaucrat in Washington DC who went to college and then to work in the government, who never had a real job, never started a business, never put his home on the line with the bank to keep that business running, never had to skip a paycheck in order to meet payroll for his employees, never had to work 14 hour days for weeks on end telling me what's fair.

Is it fair some live in poverty and others live in luxury? Maybe! Fairness isn't about equal outcomes. It's about equal opporunities. If any individual or group of individuals fail to take advantage of that - it's their problem.

For the most part we get out of life what we put in it - at least in America. In so many parts of the world the corruption is so massive the wealth can only go to an elite ruling class. Take Venezuela as a perfect example of that. But this is America, and anyone who wants to have a good life can have that life, and this irrational demand for fairness is nothing more than a false leftist quilt trip on those they wish to rob.

If those who go to school, have a job, start a business, work long hard hours, don't do drugs, deprive themselves of a great many things in the beginning to make it big later in life in order to have luxuries - why isn't that outcome "fair"? Isn't that what's expected?

If someone takes a dimetrically opposing view of life refusing to get educated, refuse to get and hold a job, live on welfare, are drunkards or are drug addicted, live irresponsible lives and end up in poverty and misery - why isn't that "fair". Isn't that what we should expect for such behavior?

So then, why is it fair the rest of us have to support lazy or irresponsible people with food stamps, welfare and other social programs that's created a permanent underclass who now refuse to work and live responsible lives?

Now if you want a difinition of what's not fair - that's it!


Monday, December 11, 2017

Diabetes Treatment And Insulin Price Fixing

By Michael D. Shaw December 11, 2017 @ Health News Digest
 
In a rare case in which a Nobel Prize was awarded less than two years after the honored treatment modality was demonstrated, Canadians Frederick Banting and John Macleod shared the 1923 prize for their discovery of insulin. Banting’s first patient was 14-year-old Leonard Thompson, who at the time was close to death, but did live for another 13 years.

His first long-term success was with Elizabeth Hughes Gossett, who lived to the age of 73. She was the daughter of Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Ironically, the treatment was so effective that she chose to deny that she had been sick as a child, and expunged all references to diabetes from her father’s papers.

Sadly, as is far too common in big-time science, there was plenty of dissent between Banting and Macleod, who headed up Banting’s lab at the University of Toronto. Macleod did not immediately buy into what Banting was doing, with good reason—as earlier researchers had failed to isolate what would be named “insulin.” Moreover, Banting always thought that Macleod claimed too much credit, although various accounts of the discovery also cast blame on Banting’s attitude.

Indeed, Banting thought the prize should have been shared between himself and his assistant Charles Best. Banting gave half of his prize money to Best, and Macleod followed suit by giving half of his to biochemist James Collip, who perfected the purification of insulin, at least on a small scale. Nonetheless, Banting bore a lifelong resentment toward Macleod. Apparently, there was even dissent on the Nobel Committee as to how the prize should have been split.

In early 1923, an American patent was awarded to Banting, Collip, and Best for insulin and their production method. The trio promptly sold their rights to the University of Toronto for $1 each. Patent protection would assure that the manufacture of insulin would be restricted to reputable pharmaceutical houses, that could guarantee the purity and potency of their products. An early licensee was Eli Lilly, and their collaboration was crucial in driving production on a larger scale.
Despite these good intentions, by 1941, Eli Lilly; distributor Sharp & Dohme; and drug maker and distributor E.R. Squibb & Sons were indicted for conspiring to unlawfully “bring about arbitrary, uniform, and non-competitive prices for insulin and to prevent normal competition in the sale of the drug.” Health writer Mike Hoskins unearthed a contemporary story from the Indianapolis Star in which titan Eli Lilly, Jr. himself was quoted, stating that 13 price decreases on insulin had been made between 1923-41. And that, “Our price is now 3.5% of what it was when it was first sold in 1923, and today it costs the average diabetic just 7.5 cents per day.”

Some fines were issued, and that was that. Still, it does seem absurd that 94 years after the patent was issued, there still is no such thing as “generic insulin.” Instead, the price has climbed since the 1970s with the popularization of synthetic insulin, and constant patentable improvements (some more significant than others). And, the situation keeps getting worse.

In January, a class action lawsuit was filed against Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly, for offenses related to price-gouging.

One approach to lowering insulin prices would be to cut demand. Virta Health is now touting a peer-reviewed study in which a cohort of mostly overweight individuals, all with type 2 diabetes, and most on at least one medication, showed marked improvement in HbA1c levels. The program involved sustained carbohydrate restriction to achieve nutritional ketosis.

Of the initial 262 subjects, 112 (42.7%) experienced a decrease in their medications with another 21 (8.0%) having their medications eliminated. For those on insulin, 87% of them reduced or eliminated their dosages.

Another study just published in The Lancet put overweight type 2s on a strict diet. Of the participants who lost more than 30 pounds, 86% were free of diabetes after one year. Notably, none of these patients were on insulin. However, the work shows that type 2 diabetes can be put into remission in certain cases, and that drugs are not the only answer.

Sailor Staged Racist Vandalism, Navy Says,

Geoff Ziezulewicz, Navy Times, December 8, 2017
A sailor who claimed someone scrawled racial slurs on his bed aboard an aircraft carrier —sparking a viral Facebook post in the process — staged the incident himself, the Navy said Friday.

Marquie Little, a 27-year-old African American seaman, posted photos to Facebook on Nov. 15 under an alias that showed his rack on the carrier George H.W. Bush covered in trash and racial slurs.
“I proudly serve the Navy and this is what I’m receiving in return,” he wrote in the post.

“It’s not my first time being called a word such as that,” the aviation boatswain’s mate airman said in a phone interview later that month. “It puzzled me as to who would do it and why they would do it.”
But on Friday Cmdr. Dave Hecht, a spokesman for Naval Air Force Atlantic, said “a thorough investigation” conducted with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service found inconsistencies in the sailor’s account.

“A NCIS-supported command investigation following claims of racially-motivated vandalism aboard the (carrier) has determined that the alleged victim staged the incident himself,” Hecht said in an email.

“He will remain a member of the crew and continue to perform his military duties,” Hecht said.
Little denied staging the racist vandalism, and said Friday that NCIS had not done a proper investigation, but did not elaborate.

Hecht said that, while the Navy had disproven the sailor’s claims, it used the incident to provide additional crew training and reemphasize that vandalism and racism would not be tolerated.

The sailor’s Facebook post had drawn nearly 20,500 shares as of Friday.

The Navy incident follows another one this fall at the Air Force Academy preparatory school, where racial slurs were found written on the dorm message boards of five black cadet candidates.

The Air Force later said that one of those five black cadet candidates had admitted to writing the slurs................Original Article

 

Contrary to Media Reports, FBI Hate Crime Statistics Do Not Support Claims of Anti-Muslim Backlash

Jonathan S. Tobin, Gatestone Institute, December 4, 2017

The annual release of the FBI’s hate crime statistics report has attracted little attention by the mainstream media in the past few years. The most recent report, however — revealing a rise in hate crimes targeting Muslims and whites in 2016 — has been greeted with more notice than usual by the daily newspapers; even CNN chimed in to highlight the results of the report.

The reason for the sudden interest in the report was that its data appeared to confirm some of the conventional wisdom about the impact of the U.S. 2016 presidential election on anti-Muslim sentiment in America. According to the report, compared to 2015, there were increases in most categories of hate crimes. The bulk of them were based on race, ethnicity and ancestry — with the total number of such incidents rising by 5%. Still, it is the increase in anti-Muslim crimes, which increased by 20% since 2015, that stands out.

As bad as that sounds, there are those, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), who consider it to be merely another piece of evidence that America has become a hostile place for Muslims since the September 11, 2001 attacks – and particularly since Donald Trump began running for president. In fact, the ADL, which has long held that hate crimes are under-reported, due to the lack of uniform procedures for compiling data in different states around country, views the FBI report as simply the tip of the iceberg.

If the ADL is correct, it would be logical to conclude that hate crimes in America in general, and victimization of American Muslims in particular, may constitute a far greater problem than even the worrisome statistics indicate. In fact, they might mean that those who have suggested that the United States is an Islamophobic nation, as a 2010 Time magazine cover story did, could be right. The more one examines the FBI data, however, the less likely he is to reach such a conclusion.

In the first place, the FBI statistics by themselves do not show the context of the rise in hate crimes and anti-Muslim incidents. What most of the stories about the report neglect to mention is that in 2015, the FBI changed its method of classification. Before then, ethnicity- or nationality-spurred hate crimes were designated as Hispanic or non-Hispanic. The FBI subsequently revised that classification, breaking down hate crimes into a variety of possible categories. As a result, the most recent data is misleading, making the incidents in which Arabs or Muslims were targeted appear to be more numerous than in previous years.

Let us look at the actual data. In 2000, the FBI reported 28 instances of anti-Islamic crimes. In 2001 (the year of the 9/11 attacks), the total rose considerably — to 554 — but then went to down to 171 in 2002. It stayed at that level for most of the decade, dipping to 105 in 2008. In 2010, a year in which a controversy raged over ultimately aborted plans to build an Islamic center and mosque in place of one of the buildings that had been damaged by falling debris from the World Trade Center attacks, the number rose to 161. In 2014, it was 154.

The claim that the relatively small number of hate crimes can be attributed to under-reporting is implausible, given the cultural climate and plethora of media outlets eager to find evidence for Islamophobia. The lack of concrete evidence to support claims of Islamophobia is due to the fact that after 9/11 — and every other jihadist terrorist attack in America since then (such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino attack) — the U.S. government has gone out of its way to discourage anti-Muslim rhetoric and to differentiate the actions of a few fanatics from those of the law-abiding majority.

The myth of a post-9/11 “backlash” against Muslims is politically motivated and spread by groups such as the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which presents itself as a civil rights group, but was founded to serve as a front organization for the terrorist group Hamas. The effort to persuade the public that America is Islamophobic stemmed largely from the aim to shift the narrative about terrorism to that of an Islamist war on the West to one according to which Muslims are terrorized by and in the United States............Original Article


 

Rep. Steve King: ‘Diversity Is Not Our Strength’

Jacqueline Thomsen, The Hill, December 8, 2017
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that diversity is no America’s strength in a pair of tweets Friday.
King linked to an article by the Voice of Europe Friday that quoted Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban saying that cultures shouldn’t be mixed, arguing that it’s “against common sense.”

King tweeted the story with the message, “Diversity is not our strength.”

“Assimilation has become a dirty word to the multiculturalist Left. Assimilation, not diversity, is our American strength,” he tweeted.

King, one of the most vocal critics of immigration in Congress, has made controversial statements in the past, including praise for far-right European politician Geert Wilders.


The lawmaker has also defended former Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt of court for refusing to halt his immigration patrols but later pardoned by President Trump. King said that he doesn’t agree that “profiling is wrong.”...........To Read More....

The Time Has Come: Higher Ed-a-geddon

By Robert Oscar Lopez December 11, 2017

Last summer, my essay for Dissident Prof prompted a challenge from Julie Ponzi, who suggested I write a brief essay with proposals of what to change about academia. I waited several months, and now I have my proposals. I mentioned most of these in Wackos Thugs & Perverts: Clintonian Decadence in Academia, which I published with MassResistance in February 2017. They are also in earlier writings such as Colorful Conservative.

My plan involves a sixfold apocalypse. Yes, apocalypse.

The best starting point is total depravity. Higher education as we know it is indefensible. It presumes a false model of human development. People between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two cannot be trusted moving to a campus away from their parents, protected from any real consequences for stupid decisions, and taught random concepts by a professoriate anesthetized by the tenure system.

In reality, these four years of human development should be spent in conditions closer to basic combat training: they need physical regimentation. Swift punishments must impress upon them the costs of behaving foolishly. Their sexuality needs to be heavily circumscribed. Between eighteen and twenty-two, women need to be closely protected from rape. Men need guidance to transform themselves from impulsive sex maniacs into responsible providers and decent fathers.

The wasteful use of young adulthood for 40% of the American adult population is catastrophic.

Overpriced tuitions force a large chunk of family savings into an inefficient economic sector ("higher education"), meaning that their money cannot go into productive industries. Youths are not being trained for citizenship. Instead of courting, marrying, and starting families in their prime, they accustom themselves to promiscuity, irresponsible thrills, and single lives burdened with debt. They have late – and few – children, whom they are ill equipped to raise.

In certain contexts, it is wise to burn the edges of a dry forest rather than let a wildfire rage at a time and in a manner out of our control. I suggest the following concrete steps, via congressional action.

Cut all federal financial favors to colleges that do not adhere to a strict, revised standard for higher education and its obligation to the public good. By "favors," we mean direct subsidies plus tax exemptions and deductions (such as on endowments, gifts, and waivers), as well as any backing of student loans at rates below market interest. These remaining favors would all hinge upon their suitability to "the public good." Accreditation for new programs must be streamlined. They must favor all of society rather than one institution, one individual, or one class of people. Here would be the conditions:............To Read More....

My Take - He clearly understands the problem but fails to get to the real solution, which is:  Get the federal government out of education entirely. 

That's a state function.  Let them decide what's done at the local level, and make the universities completely self funding.  End all taxpayer funding and grant money and stop all student loan programs.  That will force the system to fix itself.

Memo to American Muslims: Erase the Doctrine of Jihad or Get Out!

You'd think this would be an easy message to understand, but no.

By Shari Goodman and John Steinreich

Since the loss of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and countless Islamic terrorist attacks since then, America has been subjected to an increasing Muslim population along with the growth of 3,000 mosques throughout our country, with the majority funded by Saudi Arabia. In the age of spineless and perilously non-judgmental multiculturalism, many Americans have not blinked at the sight of burkas and hijabs within our midst.

Yet, if we continue to ignore the potential peril presented by a growing but largely unvetted Muslim population, we here in America will likely suffer the same fate as that of our Western European brethren, who are enduring a pulsating wave of violence stirred up in a cauldron of festering Islamic radicalism. The question that begs to be answered is why we in the United States are importing a population whose religious tenets clearly call for jihad upon non-Muslims.
 
Muslim apologists like to point out that not all Muslims commit violent or civilizational jihad, but that is irrelevant to the question of why we would even consider taking in a population raised with a religion the dogma of which in its literal form mandates our submission or death.

For the last 1,400 years, approximately 270 million people have been murdered in the name of Islam.

This horrific outrage is not due to poverty, external oppression, or crusade. Islamic doctrine as recorded in the faith's holiest texts mandates jihad upon all infidels until all of mankind is under the dominion of Allah. Nearly 61% of Quranic doctrine consists of violent verses, which call for conquest against the non-believers. The following are just a few direct Quranic quotations to demonstrate the doctrinal view of Jews and Christians: ............ To Read More

Everything You Need to Know about Tax Reform and the Mortgage Interest Deduction

December 10, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
 
Both the House and Senate have approved reasonably good tax reform plans.

Lawmakers are now in a “conference committee” to iron out the differences between the two bills so that a consensus package can be a approved and sent to the White House for the President’s signature.

Sounds like we’re on the verge of getting a less-destructive tax system, right?


I hope so, but there are still some major hurdles. The conference committee has a difficult task. They’re only allowed $1.5 trillion in tax relief in the short run and have to produce a bill that is “revenue neutral” in the long run. That won’t be easy in an environment where interest groups are putting heavy pressure on lawmakers.

I joked that doing tax reform with these restrictions is like trying to fit an NFL lineman in Pee Wee Herman’s clothes. But the serious point is that genuine tax reform requires some revenue-raising provisions to offset the parts of the bill that reduce revenue.

Needless to say, the right way of doing this is by going after economically harmful tax preferences. I’ve already written (over and over and over again) that the deduction for state and local taxes should be on the chopping block. To their credit, lawmakers are curtailing that loophole.

Today, I want to make the case that housing preferences in the tax code also should be targeted. I’m not naive enough to think politicians are suddenly going to decide to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. But the bills – especially the House version – slightly curtail preferences for housing and it would be nice if they went a bit further.

That would free up more revenue for pro-growth tax cuts and also be smart policy. Let’s look at what some expert voices, starting with market-oriented people.

Edward Pinto of the American Enterprise Institute explains the provisions in the House bill for the Wall Street Journal.
Tax reform could make housing more affordable. Done correctly, it could increase the supply of homes by reducing federal tax subsidies for homeownership. The House’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act furthers this aim in several ways—by raising the standard deduction, capping new loans qualifying for the mortgage-interest deduction at $500,000, eliminating the deduction on loans for second homes and the deduction on cashing out home equity, and capping the property-tax deduction at $10,000.
The Senate bill raises the standard deduction as well, but otherwise basically gives housing a pass. In the conference committee, Senators should agree to the House approach. Pinto explains that homeownership will be higher with less “help” from Washington.
…the House tax bill would create about 870,000 additional available units over 10 years. This represents a boost of 14% (the current build rate will yield about 6.2 million units over 10 years). Cutting homeowner subsidies out of the tax code provides other important benefits. The percentage of mortgage holders who itemize would drop from about 60% to 12%. This would free nearly half of mortgaged homeowners from a massive federal tax incentive hanging over their financial decisions, thereby greatly reducing the market-distorting impact produced by the interest deduction. …Lower prices due to loss of subsidies will ultimately allow more low-wealth Americans to become homeowners, since less cash will be needed to close a purchase. Rents will remain roughly constant as house prices decline, thus reducing the cost of homeownership compared with renting—another positive outcome. …It is time to put the interests of taxpayers and aspiring homeowners ahead of the interests of the housing lobby. Tax reform—especially if the final bill fully implements the House’s subsidy cuts—will improve the housing market and make homeownership more accessible to all.
Professor Jeffrey Dorfman of the University of Georgia (home of the national championship-bound Bulldogs, I can’t resist pointing out) discusses the issue in Forbes.
About 64% of Americans own a house. Roughly two-thirds of those homeowners have a mortgage. Only 6% of all mortgages are for $500,000 or more. Put all those numbers together and you will find that home builders and realtors think their world is ending over policy changes to the mortgage interest deduction that impact only about 2.5% of American households. Plus, existing mortgages are grandfathered in, so anyone who purchased a home expecting the deduction will continue to enjoy it. …doubling the standard deduction means fewer people will itemize, meaning fewer will use the mortgage interest deduction. Importantly, those households that stop itemizing are doing so because the newly enlarged standard deduction provides them a lower tax burden. Households that have more after-tax income have more money to spend on houses, mortgage payments, and everything else in the economy. Housing is not being made unaffordable by the proposed tax reform since the vast majority of Americans will receive a moderate tax cut under the plan. Home builders and realtors seem concerned that a few rich Americans might not buy as expensive houses without as big a tax break, even though they will have more disposable income. …Housing depends much more on disposable income, the health of the job market, and Americans’ confidence in the economic future than it does on tax breaks. Don’t listen to the real estate industry; they will be just fine if the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passes.
George Will is not a fan of housing preferences in the tax code.
…only around 30 percent of taxpayers itemize their deductions. …not even half of all homeowners use the deduction. …the unpleasantness of 2008 demonstrated the downside of encouraging too much homeownership. Furthermore, the deduction might actually suppress homeownership by being priced into rising housing costs. Besides, Australia, Canada and Britain, which have no mortgage interest deductions, have homeownership rates comparable to that of the United States. …Homeownership is…not an investment because “it does not improve the productive capacity of the economy.” Indeed, the more money that flows into housing, the less flows into stocks, bonds or banks.
Amen. We should have learned from 2008 that it’s bad news for government to muck around in housing.

Yet some politicians can’t resist because of their desire to buy votes.

Kevin Williamson of National Review adds his two cents.
It’s time for…a proposal to reduce or eliminate the mortgage-interest deduction, a tax subsidy that makes having a big mortgage on an expensive house relatively attractive to affluent households… Do not hold your breath waiting for the inequality warriors to congratulate Republicans for proposing…significant tax increases on the rich. …Slate economics editor Jordan Weissmann, who is not exactly Grover Norquist on the question of taxes, describes the mortgage-interest deduction as “an objectively horrible piece of public policy that should be reformed,” and it is difficult to disagree with him. It distorts the housing market in favor of higher prices, which is great if you are old and rich and own a house or three like Bernie Sanders but stinks if you are young and strapped and looking to buy a house. It encourages buyers to take on more debt at higher interest rates than they probably would without the deduction, and almost all of the benefits go to well-off households in the top income quintile. It is the classic example of upper-class welfare. …mortgage subsidies are not randomly distributed. The mortgage-interest deduction is much more important to rich people in San Francisco, where the median home price exceeds $1 million, than it is to middle-class people in Tulsa, where the median home price is about $110,000. …The best course of action would be to eliminate the mortgage-interest deduction entirely over a relatively short period of time, say five years. …it is difficult to make a compelling case that subsidizing Lena Dunham’s mortgage on her $5 million Brooklyn apartment (or helping out whoever took that $4.2 million Trump apartment off Keith Olbermann’s hands) needs to be a top national policy priority.
Writing for the City Journal, Howard Husock explains why the deduction is bad policy.
…the deduction should be pruned or eliminated—not just because it is inequitable but also because it distorts the housing market. Currently, a taxpayer can deduct interest on a mortgage up to $1.1 million—substantially more than the median U.S. home value ($203,000). Not surprisingly, the Government Accountability Office has found that higher-income households are generally more likely to use the mortgage-interest and property-tax deductions. In 2008, the most recent tax year for which data are available, taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or more “accounted for 13 percent of all returns but claimed nearly half (47 percent) of all mortgage interest and property tax deductions.” …The core problem with the MID, though, lies in how it affects housing markets. Inevitably, any policy that provides a tax reduction for those who buy or own homes increases the price of housing, through the implicit promise that the tax code will lower the effective house payments. MID supporters say that it encourages homeownership, but the Urban Institute finds that it mostly “rewards affluent households who would have bought homes anyway,” …Not surprisingly, the homebuilders lobby—among the hardiest of Washington swamp creatures—is fighting the proposal. …Reducing tax deductions that put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage should not be impeded by a special-interest group that has achieved its purported social goal—homeownership—in the U.S. at a rate (64 percent) that lags that of Canada (67 percent), where mortgage interest is not deductible.
Even folks on the left realize that housing preferences are bad policy.
Here are some excerpts from a Slate column.
It also must be said that the mortgage interest deduction is an objectively horrible piece of public policy that should be reformed. Currently, it’s an estimated $80 billion-plus subsidy that disproportionately helps upper-middle-class and wealthy households—according to the Tax Policy Center, 72 percent of its benefits go to the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers. This is to be expected, since wealthier people can buy larger houses and take out bigger mortgages. It also explains much of its political invulnerability; people who earn low- to mid-six-figures vote and very much treasure their slice of the welfare state that’s submerged in our tax code. But as a result, the deduction mostly encourages people who could have afforded homes anyway to buy bigger. Research has shown it does little if anything to expand homeownership overall, and may actually discourage it among younger American by driving up prices.
Derek Thompson of the Atlantic points out that housing preferences are a reverse from of class warfare.
Although about two-thirds of American households own a home, only one-quarter of them claim the deduction…households earning more than $100,000 receive almost 90 percent of the benefits. …it makes it harder for poor renters to join the class of homeowners. …Desmond writes, “a 15-story public housing tower and a mortgaged suburban home are both government-subsidized, but only one looks (and feels) that way.”
Scholars also find he deduction is not good policy.
A just-released academic study confirms that the right kind of tax reform will be very good for society, the economy, and homeownership.
The model demonstrates that repealing the regressive mortgage interest deduction decreases housing consumption by the wealthy, increases aggregate homeownership, improves overall welfare, and leads to a decline in aggregate mortgage debt. The mechanisms behind these results are intuitive. When both house prices and rents are allowed to adjust, the repeal of the mortgage interest deduction decreases house prices because, ceteris paribus, the after-tax cost of occupying a square foot of housing has risen. Reduced house prices allow low wealth, credit-constrained households to become homeowners because the minimum down payment required to purchase a house falls. At the same time, the elimination of the tax favored status of mortgages, acting in concert with the fall in equilibrium house prices, causes unconstrained households to reduce their mortgage debt. Because rents remain roughly constant as house prices decline, homeownership becomes cheaper relative to renting, which further re-enforces the positive effect of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction on homeownership. Importantly, the expected lifetime welfare of a newborn household rises because the tax reform shifts housing consumption from high income households (the main beneficiaries of the tax subsidy in its current form) to lower income families for whom the additional shelter consumption is relatively more valuable.
Now let’s look at experts who have strong arguments against the deduction, but who also comment on the distasteful role of special interests.

Matt Mitchell and Tad DeHaven, in a column for U.S. News & World Report, point out that the only real beneficiary of the deduction are interest groups (I call them swamp creatures) that want homeowners to go into debt in order to spend more money.
Motivated in part by a need to find revenue offsets for its broader tax cut proposal, the House has proposed to reduce the amount of mortgage debt taxpayers may deduct interest on from $1.1 million to $500,000; the Senate version would slightly reduce it to $1 million. But even these modest reforms have raised the ire of Big Housing. Indeed, even if both chambers had proposed to leave the mortgage interest deduction alone, this powerful lobby would still be upset that Congressional Republicans intend to raise the standard deduction: Doing so would cause fewer taxpayers to itemize, which means fewer people would claim the deduction. … the mortgage interest tax deduction…benefits wealthier Americans and the housing lobby at the expense of the majority of taxpayers, who receive no benefit…even the benefit for wealthier taxpayers is illusory “because the tax gains to homeowners are largely offset by increases in home prices.” That leaves the powerful housing lobby – represented most prominently by the National Association of Realtors and National Association of Homebuilders – as the real beneficiary. …why, then, has Big Housing fought so hard to keep the mortgage interest deduction? The answer is that although the deduction doesn’t affect home ownership, it does incentivize people to purchase more expensive homes. That translates into more money for realtors and home builders. And because the deduction is taken against the interest payment and not the down payment, it encourages home buyers to put more of the purchase on credit. So in reality, the deduction encourages home-borrowship, not homeownership. Did we mention that the Mortgage Bankers Association is also a prominent defender of the mortgage interest deduction?
Since we’re on the topic of swamp creatures, Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner explains that housing preferences are bad for families and good for interest groups.
That means a married couple who rents (or owns a modest house, say, less than $225,000) making $70,000 would probably see their federal income taxes fall by 25 percent. Some lower-income families — including homeowners — would have their federal income tax liability wiped out. Middle-class families who currently itemize their deductions (because they spend more $12,600 a year on mortgage interest and charitable giving) would have their taxes go down, and their tax-filing simplified. …Will this lower home prices? Probably yes, because the value of this deduction gets priced into homes. That is, this deduction wasn’t really helping homeowners anyway. Who was the deduction helping? Mortgage lenders and homebuilders mostly, also realtors. These are the special interests who created and who fight tirelessly to save this deduction. Removing an economic distortion that has inflated home prices will create some losers, sure, but that doesn’t make it bad. Inflated home prices have stultified mobility, delayed family formation, increased household debt, and otherwise tied up families’ assets.
Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation also criticizes the interest groups defending special preferences.
One of the obstacles to fundamental tax reform has always been that there is an entrenched constituency that benefits in some way from every provision in the tax code, and that can be counted on to noisily oppose any change to it. These constituencies are often not taxpayers themselves but business interests that have built a business on a particular tax provision. An obvious example is the residential mortgage interest deduction. …current tax reform plans would increase the standard deduction available to taxpayers who choose not to itemize their deductions. In other words, the real estate industry has a targeted tax preference that is only available to home owners through the itemized deduction, and they don’t want to see that tax preference diluted by a higher standard deduction available to everyone else. This is an obnoxious argument for the real estate industry to be making. Giving a higher standard deduction to those who do not itemize doesn’t take anything away from taxpayers who do, and it would simplify tax filing for many taxpayers because it would make the standard deduction more attractive. Apparently the real estate industry doesn’t want Americans to get a tax break unless they agree to go into massive debt to buy a house.
The Wall Street Journal also opined about the odious role of interest groups.
…doubling the standard deduction…would make the first $24,000 of income for a married couple tax-free. What’s not to like? Plenty, says the housing lobby. The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) and the National Association of Realtors each bashed the larger standard deduction on grounds that it would make the tax subsidy to their industries less appealing. …a reminder of how misguided the mortgage-interest deduction is. For starters, it distorts the allocation of capital by favoring housing, a form of consumption, over investments that might be more productive and raise everyone’s living standards. The deduction also disproportionately benefits the affluent, who buy more expensive homes with bigger mortgages. A 2013 Congressional Budget Office study found that 75% of the benefit of the mortgage-interest deduction goes to the top 20% of income earners. Two of three American tax filers don’t even itemize, which means they can’t deduct mortgage interest even if they have it. It’s also not clear the mortgage deduction is as critical to home ownership as advocates contend. Canada and Britain have similar rates of home ownership as the U.S. (nearly two thirds of their citizens) without a mortgage-interest deduction. …Republicans should reconsider giving housing a pass. For example, the GOP could limit the amount of mortgage-interest that could be deducted, or limit the deduction to borrowing below, say, $250,000. This would make the tax benefit less tilted to the affluent, and it would also provide more revenue for lower tax rates.
Since the WSJ editorial mentions that Canada has very high homeownership without any loopholes, let’s close today’s column by reviewing some additional global evidence.

In a chapter for a book on tax reform, Bill Gale of Brookings points out that the U.K. dramatically curtailed the tax benefit of housing without any adverse impact on homeownership.
Great Britain conducted a fascinating experiment showing both the political and economic viability of reducing mortgage subsidies.’ When tax subsidies for most forms of borrowing were eliminated in 1974-1975, subsidies for interest on the principal primary residence were retained, subject to a loan limit of £25,000. No subsidies were provided on second homes. The limit was raised to £30,000 in 1983-1984 and has stayed fixed since. …More recently, the subsidy has been provided only up to a fixed rate, set at 25 percent and then reduced to 15 percent for new loans in 1998. The British experience raises several interesting possibilities. …because the £30,000 limit is well below the average new mortgage loan, mortgage subsidies provide no marginal incentive for most taxpayers. …the decline in the value of the mortgage interest subsidy has been gradual, but huge. From 1974 to 1996, the value-thought of as the interest rate times the rate at which the subsidy is taken times the real loan limit-fell by about 90 percent. Nevertheless, finding much of an effect of the policies on the housing sector is difficult. From 1974 to 1994, homeownership rates, the ratio of mortgage debt to GDP, the ratio of mortgage debt to the housing stock, and the ratio of housing to fixed capital rose faster in the United Kingdom than in the United States. …the significant reduction in mortgage subsidies when homeownership rates were rising (by thirteen percentage points from 1974 to 1994) may make the events even more remarkable from a political perspective. The British experience and cross-country evidence that the presence of a deduction for mortgage interest does not greatly influence homeownership rates suggest that the value of subsidies for owner-occupied housing could be reduced.
Charles Hughes of the Manhattan Institute writes about the deduction’s downsides, but the part of his article that I want to highlight is the description of how Denmark curtailed housing preferences with no adverse consequences.
Many areas in the tax code introduce substantial distortions that are ripe for reform. One area is the mortgage interest deduction (MID), which allows claimants to deduct mortgage interest on their primary or secondary residences, up to a certain threshold. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the deduction for mortgage interest will reduce revenue by $72.4 billion this year, and by $234 billion through 2020, making it one of the most expensive tax expenditures in the tax code. Even at this magnitude, only about a quarter of tax filers claim the deduction… A new working paper analyzing the effects of the mortgage interest deduction in Denmark finds that it has no effect on homeownership rates in the long run, and it distorts decision-making about the size and price of which homes to buy. …the economists found no short- or long-run effects on home ownership.
Here’s a chart from that study. As you can see, dramatically curtailing the value of the deduction for mortgage interest did not have any noticeable impact on homeownership.


P.S. If you like the gory details of tax policy, I explained in 2012 that the problem with the tax code and housing isn’t the mortgage interest deduction, per se, but rather the fact that business investment doesn’t get the same treatment as residential real estate.

P.P.S. While lawmakers are debating whether to slightly limit preferences for housing, I should point out that there are two other huge loopholes – the municipal bond interest exemption and the healthcare exclusion – that basically were left untouched. Hopefully they will be on the chopping block for the next installment of tax reform.

Woke Conservatives And The Awesome Power Of Not Caring

Kurt Schlichter Dec 11, 2017

Have you noticed that if you fail to do, think, and vote exactly the way that the liberals and their Fredocon minions demand, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids? Yeah, you probably have. And you’ve probably also realized that if you do everything that the liberals and their Never Trump minions demand, you’re still a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.

When you understand that, you’re on your way to being conservative woke.

And when you’re conservative woke, you’re ready to deploy the most powerful non-bullet firing weapon in your liberty-loving arsenal – your devastating capability not to give a damn what the liberals and their Conservative, Inc., cruise-shilling Benedict Arnold buddies say.

When you don’t care anymore, they got nothing..........No matter how you try to please them, regardless of whether or not you comply with their every command, that will never change.  They hate you. Govern yourself accordingly..........Well, now it’s time for America’s Normals to instruct you elitist jerks: We just don’t care what you say anymore.............To Read More....



 

Democrat Representative Used $220K of Tax Payer Money For Sexual Harassment Settlement

Timothy Meads Posted: Dec 09, 2017

Documents show that the United States Treasury used $220,000 of tax payer money to settle a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment committed by Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings against one of his staffers, reports Roll Call.
Winsome Packer, a former staff member of a congressional commission that promotes international human rights, said in documents that the congressman touched her, made unwanted sexual advances, and threatened her job.  
At the time, Hastings was the chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, where Packer worked.  Hastings has called Packer’s charges “ludicrous” and in documents said he never sexually harassed her. 
“Until this evening, I had not seen the settlement agreement between the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and Ms. Packer,” the congressman said in a statement Friday night. “This matter was handled solely by the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment. At no time was I consulted, nor did I know until after the fact that such a settlement was made.” 
Hastings said that the lawsuit that Packer filed against him and an investigation by the House Ethics Committee were ultimately dismissed. 
“I am outraged that any taxpayer dollars were needlessly paid to Ms. Packer,” he said. 
My Take - Do you know how hard it is to impeach a federal judge?  It's virtually impossible.  Here was a Democrat and a black federal judge who was impeached by a Democrat controlled Senate for taking bribes, for which he was convicted in court.  And we're supposed to believe his side of this story?  And of course the first question everyone should be asking is this:  What bunch of blithering idiots voted him into office after such a conviction?

Deporting Russia’s Past: The Anti-Polish Operation of the NKVD

By Marek Jan Chodakiewicz

Under a pretext of destroying a non-existent Polish spy organization, the “nationalities” extermination action of the NKVD, which took place USSR-wide and not just in selected localities, was launched by Stalin and his henchmen as part of the Great Terror and was proportionally the greatest peace time genocide of an ethnic minority in the Soviet Union in the interwar period. Vladimir Putin and his goons can try to bury the truth, but the truth will always come out, even if it gets deported from Russia........... Read More
 

Klayman Sues in DC Federal Court to Force DOJ Investigation Into Illegal Mueller Leaks and Conflicts of Interest and to Ultimately Order Special Counsel Removed

Moves to Disqualify Partisan Judge Amy Berman Jackson
 
(Washington, D.C., December 11, 2017). Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch (FW) and FW's current chairman and general counsel, having previously filed suit designed to have the Department of Justice remove Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and replace him and his conflicted prosecutorial staff with an ethical and honest special counsel, announced today that he has moved to disqualify the presiding judge over the case, the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson.

As set forth in the visually embedded pleadings below, Judge Jackson is not only highly partisan, having been nominated by former President Barack Obama and has exhibited a deep seated extra-judicial prejudice in favor of Mueller and against President Donald Trump in the prosecution of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, over which she is presiding, but she also has a manifest conflict of interest.

Klayman had this to say upon filing the motion to recuse and/or disqualify:

"It is incumbent upon Judge Jackson to do the ethical and right thing as her colleague the Honorable Rudolph Cantreras correctly did in the Flynn prosecution, and recuse herself from this case. The reasons for this are detailed and supported in the motion, which we urge all to review thoroughly. As the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, I believe strongly in having a fair and impartial judiciary, in particular with regard to a matter as serious as this.

Go to www.freedomwatchusa.org to sign the petition to remove Special Counsel Mueller and to contribute to Freedom Watch. While other public interest groups, like Judicial Watch, spend their resources and time mostly just filing Freedom of Information Act cases to get documents, Freedom Watch brings hard-hitting lawsuits to obtain justice.

We are unique and what Freedom Watch is now doing is what I used to do when I founded and ran Judicial Watch. We need your urgent support before the Trump presidency is destroyed and the nation goes down in flames. Go to www.freedomwatchusa.org to support this urgent effort to remove Robert Mueller as special counsel!

For more information, contact daj142182@gmail.com or (424) 274 2579.
 

God Is With Us: Leftist Hypocrisy - Leftist Heresy!

By Rich Kozlovich

On December 9, 2017 CNSNews.com Staff posted an article entitled, Jerry Brown—Who Favors Legalized Killing of Unborn—Says: ‘I Don’t Think President Trump Has a Fear of the Lord’, saying:
California Gov. Jerry Brown, who favors the legalized killing of unborn children, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he does not believe President Donald Trump “has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God” based on the fact that Trump removed the United States from the Paris climate change agreement. ...........“Brown told Whitaker that President Trump is wrong to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement and misguided for calling it a bad deal for America. ‘That's a preposterous idea, not even a shred of truth in that statement," Brown said. "I don't think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility... and this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed.’”
This is a man Planned Parenthood praised saying:  “Jerry Brown has been consistently pro-choice. He’s always supported a woman’s right to choose".  The article goes on to show what a lack of concern Brown has about what God thinks with the positions he takes. 

Then there's Nancy Pelosi.  How I hate it when she finally retires - or is stuck in a nursing home for dementia patients since she's a gift that keeps on giving.  She now claims, ‘God is With Us’ in Wanting Amnesty.  Wow!  She's now speaking for God, but which god?  She's been touted as an ardent Catholic, which must be a point of contention among Catholics, including the priesthood, since she's absolutely an ardent supporter of abortion, which is an absolute violation of Catholic doctrine.

Any Catholic who has an abortion is "subject to a latae sententiae excommunication.  That means that the excommunication does not need to be imposed (as with a ferendae sententiae penalty); rather, being expressly established by canon law, it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed (a latae sententiae penalty)."  Can one who so ardently supports public policy for such an act be any less culpable? 

Why is it leftist atheists and heretics always end up bringing God into the picture to promote one of their irrational, misanthropic and morally defective programs?  Because that's what socialists have done in America since the late 1800's, when they termed themselves Progressives.  European socialism is foundationally atheistic, which didn't play well in America, which was far more religious then than now.  What was the binding force?  Religion!  The religionists of the left touted the idea socialism was the practical application of Christian ethic - hence - what's known as the Social Gospel. 

After WWII they kicked the religionists to the curb and made psychology the binding force for their left wing programs - in short - if you disagree you're insane.  That's now failing also, so in desperation what do they resort to?  Religion!  A concept with which they have no affection or attachment except where it can attain for them the one thing they desire above all else.  Power. 

But since they've now returned to "religion" as a justification for what they want and do - perhaps we need to ask:  Who in the Bible also had an irrational and unwarranted desire for power over humanity?  Wasn't that Satan?  If we were to look at all the horrible things the leftists of the world have imposed on humanity who do you think they would most resemble.  Satan or God? 

One more thought.

Since it's the platform of the Democrat Party to support unrestricted abortion, how is it possible for any Catholic (or any Christian denomination, and Jews) to be Democrats without being heretics?

Also since they've now brought God into the picture, perhaps we should ask:  What's Christ's view? It would seem to me Matthew 7: 21-23 delivers the answer:
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’…


Argentine Judge Orders Ex-President’s Arrest in Case That Sheds Light on Iran’s Global Terrorism

By Patrick Goodenough December 8, 2017

A judge in Argentina has ordered the arrest of former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, accusing her of “treason” for allegedly covering up Iran’s suspected responsibility for the deadliest terrorist attack in the country’s history.  Judge Claudio Bonadio formally asked the Senate to remove the immunity that the 64-year-old former two-term president now enjoys as a senator, so that she can be brought to trial. The political explosive ruling – which may ultimately help to shed more light on Iran’s global terrorism – also affects several other accused senior figures, including former Foreign Minister Hector Timerman and Carlos Zannini, the former president’s legal and technical secretary and a close aide.  The judge ruled that Kirchner and others had abused their powers, betrayed the national interest and those of the people affected by the 1994 bombing of the AMIA (Argentine-Israel Mutual Association) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires........To Read More....

My Take - Is it possible Argentina has a deeper sense and commitment to the Rule of Law than does the United States?  Maybe!

The Mike Flynn Nothingburger

James ComeyVerified account “But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24
Is this a big deal? Lots of journalists and lefties (redundant) are salivating. National Review’s Andy McCarthy shares a note of caution:.........To Read More.....
Melissa Mackenzie December 8, 2017
 

A couple of questions regarding FBI super agent Peter Strzok: 
  1. Did Peter Strzok receive the Steele Dossier from Hillary Clinton on July 4th when he interviewed her?
  2. If Hillary didn’t give Strzok the dossier, who did?
  3. Did Peter Strzok put together the FISA Court material, which included the Steele Dossier?
  4. Did Peter Strzok go to the FISA Court and ask for the surveillance of the Trump team based on the Steele Dossier?
  5. Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Clinton email case?
  6. Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Trump surveillance case?
  7. Did James Comey know that Peter Strzok was compromised when he sent him to interview Michael Flynn (where surveillance was used to interview him based on the Steele Dossier that was presented to the FISA Court that Strzok put together?)

................So, again:  DNC/Clinton Campaign hires Fusion GPS –& Fusion hires Steele –& Steele works with Russians –& DOJ’s Ohr met with both Steele, and Fusion GPS’ Simpson –& Strzok/FBI interviews Clinton –& FBI Strzok assigned to Russian investigation –; ____Goes to FISA court?__________ –& FISA court approves of Trump Team surveillance –; Surveillance used to wiretap Mike Flynn and other American citizens –& Strzok interviews Flynn –& Strzok dropped from investigation –& Flynn pleads guilty of lying to FBI See the exact dates and timeline here..............To Read More... 


 
 

FBI Director Won't Tell Congress If 'Dossier' Formed Basis of Trump-Russia Investigation

By Susan Jones | December 8, 2017 Two simple questions: How did the FBI's Russia investigation start? And was it started because the Trump "dossier" was presented to somebody at the FBI? m Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) asked FBI director Christopher Wray those questions at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but he got no answers:  "How did the Russia investigation start?"

DeSantis asked Wray. "Did (FBI counterintelligence agent)Peter Strzok -- was he -- did he start it?" 

Wray answered, "I'm  not aware of who started the investigation within the FBI."

DeSantis followed up: "Was it started because the dossier was presented to somebody in the FBI?"

"I don't have the answer to that question," Wray said.

DeSantis asked Wray if he could get back to the committee with the answer:

"Well, if there's information that we can provide that -- without compromising the ongoing special counsel investigation, I'm happy to see what there is that we can do to be responsive," Wray said. ........To Read More....

My Take - Who picked this guy?  If Trump wants to really drain the swamp,  he needs to start firing people he's hired, starting with this guy, Sessions, Muller and the rest of the corrupt people at the IRS, FBI and the Justice department. 



Survey: 63% of Trump Supporters Believe Media Are an 'Enemy of The People'

By Michael W. Chapman  December 5, 2017

A new survey by the Poynter Institute and YouGov on trust in the media shows that 63% of Trump supporters agree with the president that the media are an "enemy of the people," and nearly half -- 44% -- of Americans in general believe the news media "fabricate stories about President Trump more than once in a while."
You're Fake News! The 2017 Poynter Media Trust Survey was released on Nov. 29.  According to the report's executive summary, the survey is designed "to gauge the public's support for the media in these difficult times."
"Encouragingly, we find that the public supports the press, albeit weakly," states the report. "However, this result masks dramatic polarization in media attitudes. Specifically, we show that Republicans and Trump supporters have far more negative attitudes toward the press than Democrats and Trump opponents, especially among respondents with high levels of political knowledge."......To Read More....

My Take - The article goes on to say only "31% of Americans agree with Trump that the media are the "enemy of the people"', which of course bodes will the question:  What's wrong with the other 69%?