From a friend on Twitter:
On Monday night, a group of people tore down a Confederate monument in Durham, North Carolina. The police stood by and watched as it happened. My first question is, “When vandalism is taking place, do the police normally stand back and watch?” The events were videotaped, and the police have since arrested those involved in the destruction. It is noteworthy that many of those arrested were associated with the communist group, World Workers party. The purpose of that group is to create enough chaos to cause a revolution in America that will usher in communism here. They are definitely on the fringes of American politics, but they are well-funded and have recently become very active.
On Wednesday, American Lens posted an article about the arrests.
So far four people have been charged with the following misdemeanor and felony charges according to the Durham Sheriff’s office:
- 14-132 Disorderly conduct by injury to a statue (Class II Misdemeanor)
- 14-127 Damage to real property (statue as a fixture (Class I Misdemeanor)
- 14-288.2(c) Participation in a riot with property damage in excess of $1,500 (Class H Felony)
- 14-288.2(e) inciting others to riot where there is property damage in excess of $1,500 (Class F Felony)
The article includes the following statement from one of the people arrested:
Loan Tran, after being released, gave a statement to the Durham Sun:
“The charges are outrageous. The charges are unnecessary,” said Tran.
“But we know that the charges reflect a deeply racist and white supremacist system that is more interested in preserving its relics of white supremacy than actually taking on the issues that so many people in our community are concerned about when it comes to policing or um incarceration or um… education justice or any of the other issues that are impacting our people every single day,” Tran stated.
Wait a minute. We have a video of your actions. You did tear down a statue (property damage). You were disorderly. You did participate in a riot. The damage exceeded $1,500. What does race have to do with these charges? The charges were brought as a result of your destructive actions.
The article concludes:
Tran took aim at the Governor, who has so far refused to condemn the vandalism or name the responsible parties.
“I think clearly in Durham we showed Gov. Roy Cooper that if he didn’t take action, then we would. So to Roy Cooper, we say you’re welcome, because it wasn’t his original idea.”
According to WNCN, Strobino claimed they are all innocent.
“We’re innocent. We demand the charges be dropped. The county and the district attorney should do the right thing and drop the charges,” said Strobino.
“There’s revolutions taking place all throughout the country right now and the revolution won’t be stopped,” said Thompson.
The only part of that I agree with is that the actions taken by this group of people were revolting. If being revolting means being part of a revolution, then he is correct. I believe in free speech, but I do not believe in the destruction of property. These people deserve to sit in jail until they learn respect for other peoples’ property and respect for the law.
Breitbart posted an article yesterday about a National Public Radio poll that provides hope among the current chaos. The poll convinces me that many of our political leaders and the mainstream media have totally lost touch with the American public.
The article reports:
Asked, “Do you think statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should remain as a historical symbol,” 62 percent of those polled said yes, including 44 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans, and 61 percent of Independents.
Asked if they should “be removed because they are offensive to some people,” only slightly more of the Democrats agreed, at 47 percent. Only six percent of Republicans agreed, and 27 percent of Independents.
The poll showed that the issue was divisive among African American respondents — 44 percent believed the statues should remain and 40 percent believed they should be removed.
The poll showed that white and Latino respondents felt similarly — 67 of white and 65 percent of Latino respondents believed the statues should stay; 25 percent of white and 24 percent of Latino respondents believed they should be removed.
The poll was taken after the tragedy in Charlottesville. Despite the attempt by politicians and the news media to use that event as a springboard for destroying monuments to American history and attempting to destroy President Trump, very few Americans were impressed. It is interesting to see that despite the fact that some political figures are screaming to remove our history, most Americans disagree.
For some unknown reason, politicians love to spend other peoples’ money. And they love to raise taxes to get more of other peoples’ money to spend. However, raising taxes does not always work–sometimes it has unforeseen consequences. The Laffer Curve taught us that.
The article reports:
That 1.5 cents per ounce doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is. The Tax Foundation notes that it’s “24 times the Pennsylvania excise tax rate on beer.”
“The high tax rate on nonalcoholic beverages makes them more expensive than beer in some cases,” the nonpartisan think tank wrote.
Some people, suddenly facing absurdly high costs for colas, root beers and other soft drink favorites, are turning to alcohol instead.
Probably not what was envisioned with the tax. And the tax has been put on diet drinks as well as sugared ones. So, if they had hoped to alter people’s consumption away from sugar-filled soda toward less-unhealthy, non-sugared alternatives, it was a failure.
Tax increases never sound like much–they are sold that way. Remember the luxury tax that went into effect in 1991 that nearly killed the boat industry. The tax was only supposed to impact the rich, but it caused a serious recession as the impact of the tax began to trickle down.
The article at Investor’s Business Daily further reports:
“Beverage tax collections were originally promoted as a vehicle to raise funds for prekindergarten education,” the Tax Foundation said, “but in practice Philadelphia awards just 49% of the soda tax revenues to local pre-K programs.” The majority of the money goes to government employees’ benefits and local schools that already have funding.
…the tax didn’t bring in the money the city thought it would. The city budgeted a “conservative” $46.2 million in revenues from the tax for fiscal 2017. At current projections, they’ll come up $6.7 million short. Many people are leaving Philly to do their shopping, while others have switched to other beverages, leaving a big unexpected hole in the tax revenue estimates.
“In July, city officials lowered beverage tax revenue by 14%, leaving the prekindergarten programs that the tax promised to fund in jeopardy,” the study said.
Meanwhile, local Coca-Cola and PepsiCo operations laid off nearly 150 workers and pulled some brands off Philly shelves. And angry local businesses are suing the city over the tax.
Raising taxes is never the answer. Cutting spending usually is.
On Tuesday there was a rally in Washington, D.C., to support continuing the DACA program. This is the program that allows children who were brought to America illegally by their parents at a young age to remain in the country. There are some good aspects of this law–this is the only country these children have ever known, and theoretically these children have adapted to American culture. However, DACA was never proposed as a law and Congress was never given the chance to vote for or against it–it was done by Executive Order. The downside of DACA is that it encourages illegal immigration. I suspect there is a compromise somewhere in the middle, but I haven’t seen it yet.
But we need to look at this rally in light of who put it together and who handled the expenses (the signs and the t-shirts were not homemade).
Breitbart posted an article today about the backers of the rally.
The article reports:
United We Dream and CASA, two Soros-funded pro-immigration groups, were behind the rally outside the White House where illegal aliens demanded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program be kept in place by the President Trump Administration.
At the protest, more than 25 open border activists were arrested by Metro Police outside of the White House, according to Democracy Now.
The article further explains some of the troubling aspects of DACA:
DACA recipients are given protection by the federal government and since the Trump Administration has not ended the program. Experts like Mark Krikorian have previously said that 800 new permits for protected DACA status can be granted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) per day.
Immigration hawks have long criticized the temporary amnesty program as being unconstitutional, mainly because former President Obama enacted the program through executive order. Since DACA’s inception, potentially dozens of recipients of the federal protection may be MS-13 gang members, Breitbart Texas reported.
There is a pattern here with the current unrest that we need to note. Many of the people protesting are paid, many of the people protesting have ties to international movements working against America, and many of the people protesting have no idea why they are protesting or who they are involved with.
Donald Trump is a serious threat to those who seek global governance. The political left, the establishment Republicans, and the globalists are all very unhappy about the results of the last election. Up until the election of Donald Trump, things were traveling in the direction they wanted to travel, and he has thrown a real wrench in the works. They are not going to take this lying down. If Americans truly want America to be the country that was founded in 1776, they are going to have to get involved, find their own news sources, and stand up against those who want to take our freedoms away.
We need to remember that the group that controls the vocabulary controls the news narrative. Hate speech can be used to describe any speech that does not conform to the mainstream media template. Have you ever wondered why the media refers to pro-life people as ‘anti-abortion’ and pro-abortion people as ‘pro-choice’? Have you noticed the attempt to declare anyone espousing conservative values as a racist or bigot? Why is it homophobic to support marriage the way it has been for centuries? Why is the church being asked to condone homosexual marriage–isn’t it enough to allow it to be legal? There is an attempt to undermine America’s cultural and moral fiber that has reached major proportions in the past few years. Either we are going to fight to preserve those morals and that culture or we are going to have to explain to our children and grandchildren why we were unwilling to defend their freedom.
David Horowitz is what is called a ‘red-diaper’ baby. His parents were admitted communists who taught in the New York City schools. He was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. In the 1990’s, after an incident during which he learned the true character of the Black Panthers, David Horowitz began moving toward more conservative thought. His story is told in his book Radical Son. Because of his involvement in leftist political causes as a young man, he understands how the political left works. Today he posted an article about the events in Charlottesville at Newsmax.
Here are a few of his observations from the article:
The tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, could have been an occasion to stop and consider how the tolerance for politically correct violence and politically correct hatred is leading the nation toward civil war.
Instead, the media and the political left have turned this incident into the biggest fake news story of the summer, transforming its real lessons into a morality play that justifies war against the political right, and against white people generally.
The organizers of the “Unite the Right” demonstration in Charlottesville were repellent racists.
But they came to defend a historic monument honoring a complex man and cause, and not to attack it or, presumably, anyone else.
They applied for a permit and were denied. They re-applied successfully in a petition supported by the local ACLU.
If they had come to precipitate violence, why would they have gone to the tedious trouble of applying for a permit?
Not unlike the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Illinois, years ago, they had the right to march. No one had to agree with them, but had they been left alone, they probably would not have even made the news.
The article further notes:
What “Unite the Right” actually demonstrated was that the assortment of neo-Nazis, pro-Confederates, and assorted yahoos gathered under the banner of the “Alt-Right” is actually a negligible group.
This supposed national show of strength actually attracted all of 500 people.
Compare that to the tens of the thousands who can readily be marshaled by two violent groups of the left — Black Lives Matter and Antifa — and you get an idea of how marginal “white supremacists” are to America‘s political and cultural life.
Yet “white supremacy” and its evils became the centerpiece of all the fake news reporting on the event, including all the ludicrous attacks on the president for not condemning enough a bogeyman the whole nation condemns, and that no one but a risible fringe supports.
Talk about virtue signaling!
Omitted from the media coverage were the other forces at work in precipitating the battle of Emancipation Park, specifically Black Lives Matter and Antifa, two violent left-wing groups with racial agendas who came to squelch the demonstration in defense of the monument.
Unlike the Unite the Right demonstrators, the leftist groups did not apply for permits, which would have been denied since there was another demonstration scheduled for that park on that day.
One major conclusion reached in the article:
Once the two sides had gathered in the same place, the violence was totally predictable.
Two parties, two culpabilities; but except for the initial statement of President Donald Trump, condemning both sides, only one party has been held accountable, and that happens to be the one that was in the park legally.
What is taking place in the media accounts and political commentaries on this event is an effort by the left to turn the mayhem in Charlottesville into a template for their war against a mythical enemy — “white supremacy” — which is really a war on white people generally.
The ideology that drives the left and divides our country is “identity politics” — the idea that the world consists of two groups — “people of color” who are guiltless and oppressed, and white people who are guilty and oppressors.
This is the real race war.
The media is playing a major role in tearing America apart. I can’t help but wonder if they will like the results if they are successful in separating us into warring groups and stealing our history and identity as Americans.
One way to subvert a political movement is to plant radical people in it to make the entire group look bad. This happens in political campaigns all the time when candidates are forced to return a donation from a fringe group they may have been unaware of or a candidate is invited to give a speech somewhere that turns out to be a questionable set-up. The alt-right is a name the media has associated with racism, hatred, and general radicalism. If you carefully watch the way the media uses the term, you can see an attempt to expand the term alt-right to anyone who opposes the liberal agenda of the media. The media would like to convince you that believing good things about America and its future is unacceptable, racist, and radical. Meanwhile, a group called antifa pretty much gets a pass on anything they do.
A website called jacobinmag describes the roots of antifa as follows:
Yet despite its failure to stop Hitler in 1933 and veritable dismantling in subsequent years, Germany’s socialist labor movement and its decidedly progressive traditions outlived Hitler in the factories of its industrial cities, and began gathering up the fragments as soon as open political activity became possible.
These groups, oftentimes launched from the aforementioned housing estates, were generally called “Antifaschistische Ausschüsse,” “Antifaschistische Kommittees,” or the now famous “Antifaschistische Aktion” – “Antifa” for short. They drew on the slogans and orientation of the prewar united front strategy, adopting the word “Antifa” from a last-ditch attempt to establish a cross-party alliance between Communist and Social Democratic workers in 1932. The alliance’s iconic logo, devised by Association of Revolutionary Visual Artists members Max Keilson and Max Gebhard, has been since become one of the Left’s most well-known symbols.
Essentially antifa is a communist group.
The article goes on to discuss how antifa should “fight a resurgent far right in the Trump era.” Obviously I disagree with that statement. There is nothing ‘far right’ about wanting to preserve America‘s history. There is nothing ‘far right’ about wanting to preserve the values of our Founding Fathers. I don’t believe that America is destined to become a communist country despite the efforts of groups like antifa. However, if we don’t get back to teaching our children the heritage of America and the extraordinary character and wisdom of our Founding Fathers, we could be in danger of losing the freedoms so many Americans have fought and died for.
Not every American in Charlottesville protesting the removal of historic statues was a racist, neo-nazi, etc. I am sure there were some people there who simply objected to the removal and eventual rewriting of American history. Those people had a permit to allow them to march. Antifa did not. Violence is unacceptable, but protest marches are legal. Who brought the violence? The violent incident caused by a neo-nazi has been widely reported. Has anyone reported the violence on the part of antifa?
The news media has taken sides against political conservatism (and American history). They did that a long time ago. The reporting on Antifa and the trouble they have caused in recent years (Berkley, Charlottseville, various G20 summits, etc.) has been limited and will probably continue to be so. The reporting on any extremes on the political right has been put on the front pages above the fold. Americans need to understand that they are being played.
I love Iceland. It is one of my favorite places to visit. Even though I truly hate cold weather, I still find the country fascinating. However, there is something going on there that troubles me deeply.
The article reports:
Don’t tell me again about the moral imperative to denounce Nazis if you’re going to let this slide.
As Rob mentioned to me when we were discussing who would write this up, the essence of Hitler‘s eugenics program was to filter out children who didn’t have the traits deemed optimal for the Aryan race. Horrifying? Obviously. You’d have a fit if they started aborting babies for having brown skin, or – if there was some way you could tell – for being gay.
And you should have that fit.
But you don’t need to wait. You can have the fit right now, because Iceland is well down this road. There, expectant mothers are given blood tests to determine if there’s a likelihood their baby will have Down Syndrome. And if it looks that way? Well, the mothers are informed that most abort under these circumstances. No one wants a child who doesn’t have the perfect designer genes, you understand, so Iceland is now to the point where almost 100 percent of mothers who are told their babies will probably have Down Syndrome go ahead and have said babies killed.
And CBS News is congratulating Iceland for this rousing success.
The article quotes the CBS News story:
With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.
Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women — close to 100 percent — who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.
While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.
Note that they are not eradicating the disease by curing it, but rather by killing those who would be born with it. That really doesn’t seem like a solution to me.
CBS News further states:
Quijano (CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano) noted, “In America, I think some people would be confused about people calling this ‘our child,’ saying a prayer or saying goodbye or having a priest come in — because to them abortion is murder.”
Olafsdottir (at Landspitali University Hospital, Helga Sol Olafsdottir counsels women who have a pregnancy with a chromosomal abnormality) responded, “We don’t look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication… preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder — that’s so black and white. Life isn’t black and white. Life is grey.”
Wow. Just wow. I am appalled at the idea that you can eradicate a disease simply by killing those who have the potential to have it. One wonders how future generations will look upon this.
The Daily Caller is reporting today that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that claims to be a Muslim civil rights group, is calling on state and local governments to tear down all Confederate monuments.
The article reports:
Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national executive director, urged state and local governments to erase every symbol and every vestige of Confederate history immediately.
“A fitting response to the deadly terror attack on anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville would be for officials in states and cities nationwide to immediately announce that every street, every school, every flag, and every public memorial honoring those who took up arms in defense of white supremacy and slavery will be removed or have its name changed to instead honor those who fought for civil rights,” Awad said in a statement to The Daily Caller.
First of all, let’s take a look at who CAIR is.
The article reminds us:
In 2009, CAIR was listed by the U.S. government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme that provided funding to the terror group Hamas.
That case was The Holy Land Foundation trial which revealed the document An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America. This document was discovered accidentally when an alert Maryland State Trooper noticed Ismail Elbarasse videotaping the structural supports of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. A search warrant of Mr. Elbarasse’s home revealed the archival documents of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.
CAIR is no more interested in civil rights than they are interested in promoting the consumption of bacon. Their goal is Sharia Law in America, which would deny the women of America civil rights. To CAIR, the erasing of American history would simply be a step in the direction of bringing Sharia Law to America. Remember what the Taliban did to the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Taliban are all cut of the same cloth. The all have the same goal, although they have different ideas on how to reach that goal.
The people calling for the removal of memorials remembering the Confederacy need to take a close look at who they have aligned themselves with. Removing monuments is the first step to rewriting history. That is not a road we want to go down. America is not perfect. We have made mistakes, but rewriting history does not change what was.
The article states:
Many Democrats and their ideological allies are using the congressional recess to crow about the GOP‘s defeat — and dream about replacing Obamacare with a bonafide single-payer system.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has promised to introduce a single-payer bill next month. “I have no illusions that . . . suddenly we’re going to see a Medicare-for-all, single-payer passed,” he said last week. “Why is the United States the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people?”
Several folks within the senator’s sizeable political following have hinted that support for single-payer will be a “litmus test” that will determine whether they will get behind Democratic candidates — or primary them.
So what does single-payer healthcare mean? The Medicare for All plan that Senator Sanders introduced during his presidential run would cost $2.5 trillion — nearly double what the Sanders campaign claimed. Another study by the Urban Institute found that the plan would increase spending by $32 trillion over the next decade.
The article further reports:
Last November, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 69, a ballot initiative that would have created a single-payer system in the state, by an 80-20 margin. An independent analysis revealed that the plan would have run a deficit of $253 million in its first year — and $7.8 billion by 2028.
Bernie Sanders’s own state of Vermont experienced similar sticker shock. The plan under consideration in the Green Mountain State would have cost $4.3 billion — nearly 90% of the entire state budget.
To cover that tab, payroll taxes would have surged 11.5%; income taxes would have increased 9%. Consequently, in 2014, Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin shelved the plan, deeming it “unwise and untenable.”
The article reminds us that the way to make single-payer more economical is to ration care. That is not an improvement to the healthcare Americans received before President Obama ruined it for the majority of Americans.
The article concludes:
The median Canadian, for example, waits nearly five months to get treatment from a specialist after receiving a referral from his general practitioner. That is more than twice the wait of 25 years ago.
The United Kingdom’s single-payer system offers more of the same. At the end of June, 4 million people were waiting for care. That is the highest figure in a decade.
Is this really the path the United States wants to go down? According to a June Pew survey, only 33% of Americans think single-payer health insurance is a good idea. But that number is up 12 percentage points since 2014.
It should come back down, once Americans realize that single-payer means paying a lot more for a lot less health care.
It is long past time for the Republicans to repeal ObamaCare.
There is a lot of talk on the news yesterday and today about the tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday. But I think there are a few things that are being left out of the discussion. The first is the right of Americans to hold differing views, even if some of us regard those views as despicable or unacceptable. The First Amendment gives us the right to be offensive. The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to violence.
In 1977, the leader of the Nazi Party in America announced that he was organizing a march on Skokie, Illinois, home of many Jewish people and many holocaust survivors. Horrendous idea, but legal. At first the city tried to block the march, but eventually the courts said that the march could go forward because of the First Amendment. As awful as this was, it was allowed under the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows free speech–it does not encourage the censorship of certain speech, even though that speech may be unacceptable to many of us.
The NSPA (Nationalist Socialist Party of America) march was held on June 25, 1978, though the march never materialized. About 20 or so Nazis congregated for only ten minutes, and throngs of Jewish and other groups drowning out their voices. Jewish organizations planned counter marches not only in Skokie, but in New York City and other places.
Meir Kahane also held a rally in 1977, after the initial cancellation but prior to the court rulings permitting it to go ahead. Kahane urged a crowd estimated at 400 to “kill Nazis now” and to arm themselves, exhorting them: “Every Jew a .22.”
President Carter also issued a statement: “I must respect the decision of the Supreme Court allowing this group (the Nazis) to express their views, even when those views are despicable and ugly as they are in this case. But if such views must be expressed, I am pleased they will not go unanswered. That is why I want to voice my complete solidarity with those citizens of Skokie and Chicago who will gather Sunday in a peaceful demonstration of their abhorrence of Nazism.”
Why was the city of Skokie able to avoid the type of violence we saw in Charlottesville? Was it simply a matter of numbers? Another thing to keep in mind was that not all the people demonstrating in Charlottesville were racists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc. I am sure there were people who were there simply to protest the tearing down of national monuments and the erasing and rewriting of our history.
There was also a very interesting post at The Gateway Pundit yesterday which included the following:
FOX News reporter Doug McKelway attended the violent protests Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.
…This was after violent Antifa terrorists launched an attack on the white supremacists.
Doug McKelway: We are now beginning to hear criticism bubble up on all sides of this event about the initial slow response by the police. When I got out of my car yesterday in Charlottesville about 10:30 in the morning you knew this was a bad scene and bad things were going to be happening because people were congregating at Lee Park and Emancipation Park wearing helmets, body armor, carrying big heavy sticks. Nobody was intent on peace here from either side. People were intent on causing havoc and causing damage. And even as wounded were being brought out of the park police were sitting idly by. I was standing off a cordoned off area where the police had set up as a staging area, the state police, and they said you can come in here this is a safe area. But when the tear gas started to fly, thrown by protesters, the police themselves began to evacuate then. I asked the guy who was in charge, “Where you going?” He said, “We’re leaving. It’s too dangerous.” They had a chance to nip this thing in the bud and they chose not to.
We had riots in Baltimore when the police stood down. We had riots in Berkley when the police stood down. What is going on here?
On Friday, The National Review posted an article about voter registration in America. It seems that there are 3.5 million more people on the election rolls than are eligible to vote.
The article reports:
Some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America’s adult citizens. Such staggering inaccuracy is an engraved invitation to voter fraud.
The Election Integrity Project of Judicial Watch — a Washington-based legal-watchdog group — analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011–2015 American Community Survey and last month’s statistics from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The latter included figures provided by 38 states. According to Judicial Watch, eleven states gave the EAC insufficient or questionable information. Pennsylvania’s legitimate numbers place it just below the over-registration threshold.
Cleaning up our voter rolls would not be a major undertaking. All that is needed is to compare Census data, voter rolls, and possibly information from various states’ motor vehicle and license registries.
The article notes that research into Judicial Watch’s information showed 462 counties of the 2,500 studied showed more voters than citizens of voting age.
The article reports:
These 462 counties (18.5 percent of the 2,500 studied) exhibit this ghost-voter problem. These range from 101 percent registration in Delaware’s New Castle County to New Mexico’s Harding County, where there are 62 percent more registered voters than living, breathing adult citizens — or a 162 percent registration rate.
Washington’s Clark County is worrisome, given its 154 percent registration rate. This includes 166,811 ghost voters. Georgia’s Fulton County seems less nettlesome at 108 percent registration, except for the number of Greater Atlantans, 53,172, who compose that figure.
The article concludes:
Under federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act and the 2002 Help America Vote Act require states to maintain accurate voter lists. Nonetheless, some state politicians ignore this law. Others go further: Governor Terry McAuliffe (D., Va.) vetoed a measure last February that would have mandated investigations of elections in which ballots cast outnumbered eligible voters.
Even more suspiciously, when GOP governor Rick Scott tried to obey these laws and update Florida’s records, including deleting 51,308 deceased voters, Obama’s Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit to stop him. Federal prosecutors claimed that Governor Scott’s statewide efforts violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act, although it applies to only five of Florida’s 67 counties. Then–attorney general Eric Holder and his team behaved as if Martin Luther King Jr. and the Freedom Riders fought so valiantly in order to keep cadavers politically active.
Whether Americans consider vote fraud a Republican hoax, a Democratic tactic, or something in between, everyone should agree that it’s past time to exorcise ghost voters from the polls.
Voter identification would clear up some of these problems, but the fact remains that the voter rolls need to be cleared up. Our Representative Republic depends on the honesty of our elections.
Joel C. Rosenberg posted an article on his blog yesterday detailing the history behind the current crisis with North Korea. The article asks the question, “How did we get to the point that Pyongyang may have 60 warheads?” That is certainly a very valid question.
Here are some of the highlights of the history reported in the article:
In October of 1994, President Bill Clinton cut a deal with North Korea in which Pyongyang agreed to “freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program,” reported the New York Times.
“This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective — an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Clinton told the American people.
“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” Mr. Clinton added. “It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.”
In return, the Clinton administration gave North Korea $4 billion in energy aid.
In addition, the Clinton deal gave North Korea two nuclear power plants, for which American taxpayers helped foot the bill.
“This is a good deal for the United States,” Mr. Clinton said at the time. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”
Obviously, North Korea chose not to honor its end of the bargain. President Clinton would have done well to follow the advice of President Reagan–“Trust, but verify.”
The article explains that President Obama’s foreign policy toward North Korea was also not successful:
In February of 2012, President Obama was similarly duped.
Mr. Obama agreed to a deal in which Pyongyang promised (again) not to build nuclear weapons and stop testing long-range ballistic missiles.
In return, the Obama administration agreed to give North Korea 240,000 metric tons of food.
Experts warned the Obama team at the time that “it is naïve at best for the administration to herald a North Korean ‘commitment to denuclearization’ after the many years of North Korean actions definitively proving the contrary.”
Less than a month later, Pyongyang tested another long-range rocket in clear violation of the agreement, and a humiliated Mr. Obama had to suspend the food aid program.
Unfortunately, the North Korean model was used by President Obama as the template for the Iran nuclear deal. President Obama chose to overlook the fact that the North Korean model was a failure.
The article concludes:
If all this weren’t bad enough, it’s made worse by the fact that the insane Obama nuclear deal with Iran was essentially patterned — and sold — after the Clinton deal with North Korea. As I warned in this Fox News interview and elsewhere (see here and here), the ayatollahs in Tehran are working closely with Pyongyang on nuclear and missile technology. They’re also watching how the U.S. and the world powers handle a nation aspiring to become a nuclear armed power. So far, they’re learning the West can be played for fools, and a small but aggressive nation can build a nuclear arsenal without much fear of being stopped.
America does not want war, but we don’t want to be nuked by a third world tin-horn dictator either. It is unfortunate that Iran and North Korea have been allowed to progress as far as they have on their nuclear programs. We also need to understand that Russia and China are not innocent bystanders in this situation–both countries are not unhappy when America is put at risk. At this time we need to unite as a people behind a strong President. Otherwise, there is a good chance that this situation will escalate in the wrong direction very quickly.
I need to say up front that I have no direct information on this incident. I am, however, very suspicious about the way it is being reported. There was a rally today in Charlottesville, Virginia, that turned ugly. The rally was sponsored by a group called #UniteTheRight. Basically the purpose of the rally was to protest the tearing down of statues that are part of American history that some people have decided are offensive. The people the statues represent may or may not be offensive, but these people are part of American history. Like most of the rest of us, they tried to do what they considered right within the circumstances of the time in which they lived. A little tolerance is in order. It is totally unfair to judge those who lived more than a hundred years ago by the standards of today. How do you think future generations will judge the black genocide in America that is the result of government policies regarding abortion? The media is reporting the rally as a white nationalist rally. First of all, since when is nationalism white?
The dictionary defines nationalism as follows:
loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Nationalism under normal circumstances is a good thing. Americans need to be proud of their country and its culture. We were pioneers in personal freedom and responsibility. We made mistakes, but there were many things we did right. Women vote, minorities vote, and in spite of what you have heard, when honestly calculated, women are paid as much as men. We still have equal opportunity in America, and we still have the freedom to voice opinions that may differ from the majority.
We need to ask why this rally turned violent. We also need to look at the way the rally is being characterized in the media. I am not sure that we will get any honest answers as to what actually happened from the media in the coming days, but as I said in the beginning of this article–I remain skeptical. I don’t see any difference between the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis and the antifa. I don’t agree with any of them, but all of them have the right to protest–none of them have the right to be violent.
It would be interesting to know where the protesters on both sides were from. How did they get there? Were they paid? Were any expenses paid for them? Who planned this rally? Who planned the protest? What were the instructions given to those attending? What is the news story that is not on the front page because this rally is taking center stage? It is time to be skeptical and assume that we are simply not being told the entire story and that the story we are being told may not be the truth.
The article explains:
As reported extensively by The Daily Signal, the Obama Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder, designed Operation Choke Point in 2012 to “attack internet, telemarketing, mail, and other mass market fraud against consumers, by choking fraudsters’ access to the banking system.”
The program works by using federal banking regulators to pressure banks out of doing business with entire industries the government declares to be “high risk,” choking their access to the U.S. banking system.
But instead of simply targeting illegal, fraudulent businesses, the program also affected legal business owners, who complained they were being unfairly denied credit and losing access to third-party payment processors central to running their businesses.
I reported in June of 2014 (here) that Mark Cohen, owner of Powderhorn Outfillters, a store in Hyannis, Massachusetts, that sells guns was denied a loan by TD bank because of the fact the he sold guns.
I quoted a Breitbart.com article, which reported:
Cohen explained what happened in an interview with The Daily Caller on Friday.
“This year I went to apply for a line of credit, and the bank manager came by the store,” said Cohen, adding that he’s known the bank manager for over 20 years.
“Mark, I apologize,” she said, according to Cohen, “your credit history is great, but the bank is turning you down because you sell guns.”
That is only one example of how Operation Choke Point was used to interfere with honest businessmen trying to earn a living. Payday lenders were also targeted by Operation Choke Point, and Community Financial Services Association of America, which represents some of the nation’s largest short-term lenders, such as Advance America, filed a lawsuit.
The Daily Signal provides a few details about the lawsuit:
The suit named the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), the government agency responsible for creating a “high risk list” of industries to target. That list grouped categories such as “racist materials” and “credit card schemes” with “firearms” and “tobacco” sales.
In July, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that payday lenders may press forward with their lawsuit against the FDIC and begin the discovery phase. That phase allows the plaintiffs to depose government officials under oath and examine documents and emails related to the program.
“We are thrilled by the court’s order to enter the discovery phase, as this illegal federal program has been unduly harming legal entities for years,” Dennis Shaul, CEO of the Community Financial Services Association, said in a July press release. “It is high time that the government’s unlawful and unjust crusade against lawful and licensed businesses be stopped.”
The article also reports the following:
In April 2016, one of President Barack Obama’s top Justice Department officials behind Operation Choke Point admitted the program had “unintended but collateral consequences” on banks and consumers.
No kidding. Actually, I am not convinced the consequences were unintended.
Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported that the body of Beranton J. Whisenant, Jr., was found on a Hollywood, Florida, beach in May. Mr. Whisenant was a Federal Prosecutor investigating VISA and passport fraud in Debbie Wasserman Schultz‘s Congressional District.
The article reports:
The police were investigating at the time to determine if Whisenant’s death was a “homicide, suicide, or something else.”
Then it gets weird.
The article further reports:
Officials say Beranton’s death was a suicide and he shot himself in the head.
But no gun was ever found.
The Sun-Sentinel reported:
Detectives and a medical examiner found Whisenant had shot himself in the head, Hollywood police said.
Police searched for two blocks north and south of the crime scene but couldn’t find the gun or any other weapon.
How can it be a suicide by gunshot to the head when no gun was found? I suspect we may hear more about this story at a later date.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Unfortunately, it seems as if many of our courts have not read the Constitution.
On Wednesday, The Conservative Tribune reported:
The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot suppress free speech or favor a religion — but a court in New Jersey is violating both of those promises.
That public forum is intended to determine whether a mosque should be built in the community.
How can you determine whether or not a mosque should be built if you are not permitted to talk about either Islam or Muslims at the public hearing?
The article further reports:
In response to the controversial order, the Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Christopher and Loretta Quick, who live just 200 feet away from the proposed mosque site.
…Additionally, the lawsuit argues that the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, or “ISBR,” is permitted to make any sort of comments about Jews or Christians without restriction, but the government is actively suppressing free speech in the other direction.
“While claiming that the Township had a religious animus against Muslims, ISBR hid from the public view its animus toward Christians and Jews, by not only hiding anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses published on its website, but also hiding its significant ties to ISNA [Islamic Society of North America],” attorney Richard Thompson explained in a news release.
“Instead of standing up to defend its citizens against ISBR’s hate-filled anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bias, the Township colluded with ISBR’s ‘Civilization Jihad’ by capitulating to payment of millions of dollars to ISBR, allowing the construction of the new mosque and Islamic center in violation of zoning codes, and now even suppressing speech concerning Islam or Muslims at a public meeting,” Thompson continued.
True enough, the court-ordered settlement which forbids citizens from bringing up their concerns about Islam is clearly printed for anyone to see.
One of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is to institute Sharia Law over non-Muslim populations. That is exactly what is being attempted here. Hopefully this case will move forward to a judge who might have actually read the Constitution.
The biggest danger to America right now is not from outside the country–it is from within. The danger comes from a well-established, well-funded, totally entrenched group of people in Washington who are afraid that President Trump will upset their apple cart and take away their goodies. What they don’t realize is the the success of President Trump is very closely related to the success of America–if President Trump is driven from office, it is quite possible that our representative republic will dissolve into chaos. At that point, no political party wins and everyone loses.
The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about the efforts to undermine and eventually oust President Trump by a coalition of Marxists, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans.
The article reports:
Rich Higgins, until recently director of strategic planning at the NSC, revealed the program in a seven-page memorandum produced in May that warns of a concerted information warfare campaign by the Marxist left, Islamists, and political leaders and government officials opposed to the populist president.
“The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns designed to first undermine, then delegitimize and ultimately remove the president,” Higgins states.
“This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle,” he said.
Higgins, an Army veteran and former Pentagon official who specialized in irregular warfare and who was dismissed last month for writing the memo, said the attacks should not be confused with normal partisan political attacks or adversarial media attention.
The former aide criticized the White House for failing to counter the activities and said the political warfare attacks threaten the Trump presidency.
I am not sure there is a way to counter these activities other than by the use of the President’s Twitter account and the basic economic success of the President’s programs. Actually, I think the opponents of the President fear his economic success more than they fear anything else. The idea that someone outside the ‘club’ can be successful is frightening to any member of the Washington establishment.
What is currently going on in Washington is the equivalent of the ‘cool’ kids in high school holding tight control over who sits at their lunch table. A kid they do not consider cool has become popular and has chosen not to join them at their table. Every smear campaign possible that might put the cool kids back in control will be attempted. That is where we are.
Peace in our time is a wonderful idea. It would be nice if we could someday achieve it. However, I am not optimistic. There will always be bullies, people who sacrifice principles for power, the dishonest, the greedy, etc. These people cannot be dealt with peacefully. When people with these character traits are the leaders of countries, peace is not possible. Unfortunately, not all of our leaders understand that principle.
On Tuesday The Daily Caller posted an article about the deal reached between North Korea and former President Clinton that promised that North Korea would never develop nuclear weapons. We can see how well that deal worked out. President Obama negotiated a similar deal with Iran. That deal is following in the same direction as the deal with North Korea.
The article at The Daily Caller reports:
North Korea now has an intercontinental ballistic missile that can range most of the continental U.S., and a new Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggests that North Korea has successfully miniaturized nuclear warheads for its missiles. The North is, according to a recent defense intelligence report, expected to be able to field a reliable, nuclear-armed ICBM as early as next year.
In the early 1990s, Clinton faced a growing nuclear threat from North Korea, but he ultimately chose diplomacy and deals over the application of military force.
“I was determined to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear arsenal, even at the risk of war,” Clinton wrote in his memoirs. He decided to change course after receiving “a sobering estimate of the staggering losses both sides would suffer if war broke out.”
I agree that there would be staggering losses on both sides if war broke out, but did it occur to President Clinton that those losses would increase exponentially if North Korea went ahead with their nuclear program? As Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust, but verify.” No one verified, and here we are.
I have no idea how this is going to turn out, but I am truly glad that Donald Trump is in the White House and not someone who is unwilling to confront a bully. This may well get ugly, but it is becoming obvious that in this situation, there is no diplomatic situation.
It seem as if under the Obama Administration that if you held the wrong political opinion you might be wiretapped, charged with a crime you didn’t commit, or harassed in some way. Unfortunately the ‘deep state’ is continuing that practice. They are organized and prepared to fight. There are some real questions as to whether those who oppose the ‘deep state’ had any idea how extensive it is or and idea of how to fight it.
Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review about the FBI raid on Paul Manafort‘s home. There are a number of aspects of that raid and of the timing of the reporting of that raid that need to be understood.
First of all, the raid took place in late July, why is the mainstream media suddenly putting it in the headlines? Could it be that the Russia story needs to be revived with all the fuss about North Korea?
Andrew McCarthy has a few observations about the raid:
Here’s the thing to bear in mind about the Washington Post’s report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had the FBI execute a search warrant against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in late July: Prosecutors don’t do pre-dawn raids on the home of a cooperating witness.
…There are two possible rationales for a search warrant under the circumstances. First, the legitimate rationale: Investigators in good faith believed Manafort, who is either a subject of or witness in their investigation, was likely to destroy rather than surrender relevant evidence. Second, the brass-knuckles rationale: The prosecutor is attempting to intimidate the witness or subject — to say nothing of others who are similarly situated — into volunteering everything he may know of an incriminating nature about people the prosecutor is targeting.
The article concludes:
Moreover, in light of the fact that Manafort has ostensibly been cooperating with congressional committees, and that Mueller has a grand jury that would have enabled him to compel Manafort to surrender evidence by subpoena, I wonder if the Justice Department would shed some light on (a) why it was thought necessary to conduct a raid on Manafort’s home and (b) whether the special counsel and the FBI sought permission to conduct the search before 6 a.m. (i.e., in what the Post reports as the pre-dawn hours).
Finally, I wonder whether the deputy attorney general or the special counsel would inform the public whether the president of the United States is a suspect in a criminal investigation.
It has become very obvious that the Washington establishment is willing to do pretty much anything to stage a coup to undo the November election. I wonder if they realize the damage they are doing to America by their efforts, or if they care, or if their goal is to change the very nature of America. It is time to put a stop to this nonsense. We know about the pay-to-play in the last administration that the Justice Department was totally not interested in investigating. It is time to get back to the idea of equal justice under the law. All of the people in the Washington establishment involved in the effort to unseat President Trump need to be fired immediately. They need to find other jobs to do. If they are elected, the voters need to make sure they are unelected at the first opportunity. The American people can preserve their representative republic, but they will need to be looking past the mainstream media headlines in order to do it.
Yesterday Breitbart reported that in the last year food stamp [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)] enrollment has gone down in 46 out of the 50 states. The biggest drops were in Connecticut, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.
The article reports:
Connecticut saw the largest drop, with SNAP enrollment dropping 25.4 percent from May 2016 to May 2017.
The state also saw a pretty hefty drop in enrollment over one month — Connecticut’s enrollment in the food stamp program dropped 14.2 percent from April 2017 to May 2017.
North Carolina saw the second-largest decrease in SNAP enrollment with a 14.2 drop in the number of state residents participating in the food stamp program.
Part of the decrease has to do with a provision in the 2009 economic stimulus bill. The bill included a waiver of the work requirement in areas that were economically depressed.
The article explains:
The economic boom in these towns no longer made them eligible as of April 1, 2016, for a waiver from SNAP regulations. These regulations were put in place nationwide before the recession and require able-bodied adults without children to work at least 20 hours week, enroll in school, or take part in state-approved job training if they receive benefits for more than three months.
…The only four states that did not see declines in food stamp enrollment are Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, and Illinois. Each of those states reported slight gains in SNAP enrollment. Alaska saw the biggest increase in food stamp enrollment, with SNAP participation increasing by 4.1 percent. Illinois saw the second-largest increase in SNAP enrollment at 3.4 percent, and Montana reported an increase of 3 percent.
All of those states participate in the waiver program either statewide or in certain towns because of chronic unemployment in those areas.
Nationwide, food stamp enrollment has been on the downswing. Food stamp use in the U.S. fell to its lowest level in seven years, and 1.1 million Americans dropped off the food stamp rolls since President Trump took office.
There is a basic lesson here. When there is a work requirement to collect food stamps, enrollment goes down.
As I reported in July:
For example, in July 2014, Maine announced that it would no longer grant waivers from the work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependent children.
In order to receive benefits, they would thus have to work, participate in a work program for 20 hours per week, or do community service for about six hours per week.
It is important to note that this policy did not arbitrarily cut food stamp recipients from the program rolls. Able-bodied adults without dependent children in Maine were removed from the rolls only if they refused to participate in modest activities.
In fact, most of these individuals in Maine chose to leave the program rather than participate in training or community service, despite the strong outreach efforts of government caseworkers. This indicates that these individuals had other means of supporting themselves.
As a result of the new policy, the Maine caseload for able-bodied adults without dependent children dropped 80 percent in just a few months, falling from 13,332 in December 2014 to 2,678 recipients in March 2015.
I wonder what Congress had in mind when the waivers were put in place in 2009. We now have the examples of Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, and Illinois. All of those states still have the waivers, and they are the only four states whose economies have not improved sufficiently to remove the waivers. Food stamps without a work or training requirement does not help anyone–it simply creates dependency. How many times do we have to see this principle in action before we learn that lesson?
On August 3rd, The Washington Times posted an article about the cost of illegal immigration. The article pointed out that the cost of deporting all of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants would cost nearly $125 billion. However, the cost of the government services involved in allowing them to stay would be nearly $750 billion from taxpayers over their lifetimes. This represents a major departure from the past when immigrants came to America to earn success rather than to have the country support them. So what impact has the election of President Trump had on the numbers of illegal immigrants in America?
The article reports:
The Department of Justice released new numbers Tuesday afternoon showing voluntary departures and deportations of illegal immigrants are up by 30 percent. Here are the numbers between February 1 and July 31, 2017:
Total Orders of Removal: 49,983
Up 27.8 percent over the same time period in 2016 (39,113)
Total Orders of Removal and Voluntary Departures: 57,069
Up 30.9 percent over the same time period in 2016 (43,595)
The court system has also streamlined a number of deportation cases to final decisions.
I am not opposed to legal immigration. Controlling our borders and controlling who is allowed to come into America is part of the responsibility of the government. It would be nice if they took that responsibility seriously.
The article states the probable reason for the change in numbers:
DOJ officials are touting the numbers as a “return to the rule of law” under the Trump administration. For months the Department has been cracking down on sanctuary cities and Homeland Security has conducted a number of ICE raids to rid communities of violent criminal aliens.
Leadership in Washington makes a difference. There are a limited number of things the President can do without Congress, but in those areas, President Trump has accomplished a number of things that will help average Americans earn more and live better. One of the major problems with illegal immigration is the downward pressure it exerts on the wages of low-skilled workers. Corporations like illegal immigration because it provides labor at a lower cost than what they would have to pay an American citizen. Corporations donate to Congressmen, and Congressmen are slow to act on the problem of illegal immigration. That is an instance where an Executive Order from the President can get something done that Congress is not interested in doing.
On August 4th, Daniel Greenfield posted an article at Front Page Magazine about National Security Council head H.R. McMaster. Daniel Greenfield has concluded that McMaster is part of the deep state and is working against the interests of both America and the Trump Administration. At this point I should mention that like it or not, Donald Trump is the President, and working against Donald Trump is working against the interests of America. It is not patriotic to oppose anything and everything the Trump Administration proposes–it is obstructionism. The Washington establishment’s worst nightmare is for the Trump Administration to succeed–that will be the end of their stranglehold on our government and their success as an elite class.
The article notes:
Derek Harvey was a man who saw things coming. He had warned of Al Qaeda when most chose to ignore it. He had seen the Sunni insurgency rising when most chose to deny it.
The former Army colonel had made his reputation by learning the lay of the land. In Iraq that meant sleeping on mud floors and digging into documents to figure out where the threat was coming from.
It was hard to imagine anyone better qualified to serve as President Trump’s top Middle East adviser at the National Security Council than a man who had been on the ground in Iraq and who had seen it all.
McMaster had a different list of people he wanted to fire. It was easy to make the list. Harvey was on it.
All you had to do was name Islamic terrorism as the problem and oppose the Iran Deal. If you came in with Flynn, you would be out. If you were loyal to Trump, your days were numbered.
And if you warned about Obama holdovers undermining the new administration, you were a target.
One of McMaster’s first acts at the NSC was to ban any mention of “Obama holdovers.” Not only did the McMaster coup purge Harvey, who had assembled the holdover list, but his biggest target was Ezra Watnick-Cohen, who had exposed the eavesdropping on Trump officials by Obama personnel.
It seems as if the NSC under McMaster has turned political, gotten totally out of control, and needs to be promptly reined in.
The article continues:
Ezra Watnick-Cohen had provided proof of the Obama surveillance to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. McMaster, however, was desperately working to fire him and replace him with Linda Weissgold. McMaster’s choice to replace Watnick-Cohen was the woman who helped draft the Benghazi talking points which blamed the Islamic terrorist attack on a video protest.
After protests by Bannon and Kushner, President Trump overruled McMaster. Watnick-Cohen stayed. For a while. Now Ezra Watnick-Cohen has been fired anyway.
According to the media, Watnick-Cohen was guilty of “anti-Muslim fervor” and “hardline views.” And there’s no room for anyone telling the truth about Islamic terrorism at McMaster’s NSC.
McMaster had even demanded that President Trump refrain from telling the truth about Islamic terrorism.
Another of his targets was Rich Higgins, who had written a memo warning of the role of the left in undermining counterterrorism. Higgins had served as a director for strategic planning at the NSC. He had warned in plain language about the threat of Islamic terrorism, of Sharia law, of the Hijrah colonization by Islamic migrants, of the Muslim Brotherhood, and of its alliance with the left as strategic threats.
Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is chilling to think that a group of people have become so entrenched in a government agency that they will risk the security of America to remain in power.
Obamacare is not working. The Senators who voted not to repeal Obamacare knew that when they voted. However, the situation for Obamacare has deteriorated further since that vote.
The Washington Free Beacon reported today that he Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance has announced that the Obamacare co-op is now under its control as the Supreme Judicial Court granted the commissioner receivership. The commissioner said Minuteman Health’s capitalization is very thin, and this action was done to protect policyholders and health care providers. In June Minuteman Health of Massachusetts and New Hampshire announced that it was pulling out of the Obamacare exchanges next year.
The article reports:
“Minuteman Health is subject to certain co-op rules that limit Minuteman Health’s ability to adjust its business model to mitigate the impact of the dysfunctional risk adjustment program,” the company stated in June.
“The program also unfairly penalizes issuers like Minuteman Health that are small, low cost, and experience high growth,” the co-op said. “The significant negative impact from risk adjustment has been the principal driver of a reduction in Minuteman Health’s surplus and capital over time.”
If Minuteman Health opts to create a new insurance company, that company will not be subject to these rules.
As I have said before, government programs don’t understand actuary tables–insurance companies do. Insurances companies are in business to make money. That is legal and should be encouraged. When the government interferes with the free market, bad things happen. Obamacare is a shining example of that principle.