Some Rational Thought On Global Warming

John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, has written an essay for the Scientific American about global warming. Breitbart posted some of his comments today.

The article reports:

The essay, penned by John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes two recent reports by “ecomodernists” who reject climate panic and frame the question of climate change and humanity’s ability to cope with it in radically new terms.

One of the reports, a work called “Enlightened Environmentalism” by Harvard iconoclast Steven Pinker, urges people to regain some much-needed perspective on climate, especially in the context of the overwhelming material benefits of industrialization.

Pooh-poohing “the mainstream environmental movement, and the radicalism and fatalism it encourages,” Pinker argues that humanity can solve problems related to climate change the same way it has solved myriad other problems, by harnessing “the benevolent forces of modernity.”

Separating himself from environmentalists who seem to detest modernity, Pinker asserts that industrialization “has been good for humanity.”

…The second report put forward by Horgan is a recent article by Will Boisvert titled “The Conquest of Climate,” which contends that the “consequences for human well-being will be small” even if human greenhouse emissions significantly warm the planet.

Boisvert, who has been described as a “left-wing environmental expert, is no “climate denier,” yet he calls for climate alarmists to take a deep breath and step back from doomsday forecasts that likely have little to do with what will actually take place in the future.

As an example, the author pokes fun at a 2016 Newsweek article announcing that “Climate change could cause half a million deaths in 2050 due to reduced food availability.”

The story, based on a Lancet study, made dire forecasts regarding the effects of climate change on agriculture, while failing to note that the study actually predicts much more abundant food availability in 2050 thanks to advances in agricultural productivity. These advances will “dwarf the effects of climate change,” he contends, and the “poorest countries will benefit most.”

Like Pinkers, Boisvert tries to factor in what climate alarmists ignore: the capability of human beings to react to changing scenarios in remarkably ingenious ways.

The activities of civilized human beings may have some small impact on the environment, but we are not significant enough to control climate. We have a responsibility to keep the air and water as clean as possible, and sometimes we do not live up to that responsibility. As human beings, we need to be good stewards of our planet, but we do not need to cripple the economies of prosperous nations to do it.

The article concludes with what is actually a concise summation of what is driving much of the climate change hysteria:

While climate skeptics will welcome this gust of common sense wafting in from the Scientific American, establishment climate alarmists will undoubtedly seek to quash the news, knowing it could affect not only the funding they depend on, but the ideologically driven political programs they seek to impose on the world.

After all, if the world is not under imminent peril from climate change, who will listen to—and fund—the prophets of doom?

It really is all about the money!

This Is Not A Surprise, But It Is Really Tacky

The Center for Security Policy is reporting today that a new think tank has recently formed in Washington. The think tank, called National Security Action (NSA), is made up of about fifty former Obama administration officials. Three founding members are Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Even in Washington, could anyone find three people with a worse record of telling the truth?

The article reports:

The mission statement of the group is anything but subtle: “National Security Action is dedicated to advancing American global leadership and opposing the reckless policies of the Trump administration that endanger our national security and undermine U.S. strength in the world.”

National Security Action plans to pursue typical liberal foreign policy themes such as climate change, challenging President Trump’s leadership, immigration and allegations of corruption between the president and foreign powers.

This organization uses the acronym NSA, which is ironic. Three of its founding members – Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Samantha Power – likely were involved in abusing intelligence from the federal NSA (National Security Agency) to unmask the names of Trump campaign staff from intelligence reports and to leak NSA intercepts to the media to hurt Donald Trump politically. This included a leak to the media of an NSA transcript in February 2017 of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s discussion with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak. No one has been prosecuted for this leak.

…It is interesting that the new anti-Trump group says nothing in its mandate about protecting the privacy of Americans from illegal surveillance, preventing the politicization of U.S. intelligence agencies or promoting aggressive intelligence oversight. Maybe this is because the founders plan to abuse U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on Republican lawmakers and candidates if they join a future Democratic administration.

I am sure that the formation of this group is not unrelated to the 2018 and 2020 elections. I also suspect that part of the purpose of this group is to create a positive image of Barack Obama. As the Trump administration continues and the economy and foreign relations improve, it is becoming very obvious that America needed to move in a new direction after eight years of President Obama. I suspect that this group is going to work very hard to undermine President Trump and convince Americans that President Obama’s policies were successful. Good luck.


This Is Not A New Idea

On Friday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a proposal before Congress asking taxpayers to make loans to private, union-run pension plans. This is a really bad idea. We have seen what has happened to the college loan program since the government took it over. Just in case you think the idea of the government bailing out union pension plans is far-fetched, I posted an article about this idea in October of 2010.

The article reports:

The Butch Lewis Act—a proposal to bail out private-sector pensions through loans as well as direct cash assistance—acknowledges the high probability of default by stipulating that pension plans that have trouble repaying their loans after 30 years of interest-only payments will be eligible for forgiveness or alternative repayment plans.

A loan with a zero-consequence default option for the borrower is not a loan—it’s a bailout.

But it’s not just defaults that taxpayers need to be concerned about. There’s also the cost of providing highly subsidized, low- or no-interest loans for 15 to 30 years, as well as the risk that plans will increase—rather than decrease—their unfunded liabilities over the course of their loans.

These features could lead to loans to insolvent pension plans costing taxpayers more than direct cash bailouts.

But those costs won’t be apparent in the official government score because the Congressional Budget Office is required to score loans under the assumption that insolvent pension plans are essentially riskless borrowers.

In reality, loans to insolvent pension plans could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. The most liberal proposals—which supplement loans with direct cash assistance—could cost more than the entirety of multiemployer pensions’ half-trillion-dollar shortfall.

Does anyone really believe that these loans will be paid back? Union membership is down, and various courts are hearing cases that will make the mandatory payment of union dues by non-union members who work in a union shop illegal. Both of these factors will make the union retirement plans (actually a true Ponzi scheme) unsustainable.

The article concludes:

Coping with roughly $500 billion in private union pensions’ unfunded promises will not be easy. There are ways to minimize losses to workers who have earned pension benefits and protect taxpayers from paying for private pensions’ broken promises.

Policymakers should look to improve the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.’s multiemployer program through premium increases and other reforms; end union pensions’ preferential treatment; enact and enforce sound funding rules; hold pension trustees liable for financial decisions; act sooner rather than later to enact needed reforms, including benefit reductions; and explicitly prohibit federal pension bailouts.

None of these actions provide a costless cure-all, but they offer more fair and rational solutions that don’t treat taxpayers as guarantors of private-sector promises or set the stage for even more mismanagement and reckless behavior.

There is no reason every American should pay for the fact that the unions have not sufficiently funded their retirement plans!

If You Ever Wondered What The Problem Was With Higher Education, This Might Be Your Answer

On Thursday, The Hill reported that on May 25th the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University was going to present Hillary Clinton an award that recognizes individuals who have had a “transformative impact” on society. I assume the award may be conditional based on whether or not she is in jail by then.

The article reports:

“Hillary Clinton’s life and career are an inspiration to people around the world,” Radcliffe Institute Dean Lizabeth Cohen, who teaches American studies at Harvard, said in the press release.

“Whether in Arkansas, Washington, D.C., New York state or traveling around the globe as secretary of State,” Cohen said in the statement. “Secretary Clinton has provided a model of what it takes to transform society, often under scrutiny — tireless effort, toughness amid the political fray, and an enduring capacity to envision a better future.”

The event in May will feature a tribute to Clinton delivered by friend, former secretary of State and fellow Radcliffe medalist Madeleine Albright, according to the release, as well as a conversation between Clinton and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D).

Clinton, who ran unsuccessfully against President Trump in 2016, was the first woman to secure a nomination for president from a major political party in the United States.

In the statement, Radcliffe added that Clinton was a “skilled legislator,” and “an advocate of American leadership to create a world in which states live up to their responsibilities.”

“We commend Secretary Clinton for her accomplishments in the public sphere as a champion for human rights and the welfare of all,” Cohen said.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton was the first woman to run for President. Based on what? She was elected a Senator from New York on the basis of her husband’s popularity. She rigged the Democratic primary election to become the candidate. The jury is still out on the corruption in the Clinton Foundation (although that may come to a head very soon). She obviously mishandled classified information in a way that would have put other people in prison. The list of scandals that has followed the Clintons since the 1990’s is almost endless. And this is the woman Harvard is choosing to honor.

I will admit that Hillary Clinton has been transformative in that she has transformed the meaning of the word ethical.

Is This Really What We Want?

Forbes Magazine posted an article yesterday about the Democrats planned tax policy. The article lists the specifics of the plan.

The article reports:

Increase the top marginal income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent. This nearly 3 percentage point increase in the top personal rate is not only a hike in the top bracket levy, but it’s also a direct tax increase on small and mid-sized businesses. The 30 million companies which are organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, Subchapter-S corporations, and LLCs pay their business taxes on their owners’ 1040 personal tax returns. Hiking the top tax rate is a small business tax increase.

 Increasing personal income taxes would be particularly unfortunate since workers are now seeing the results of lower rates in their paychecks. Thanks to the new IRS withholding tables, in February of this year over 90 percent of workers saw higher take home pay in the form of fatter direct deposits (for a humorous spectacle of the New York Times desperately trying to get people to down-talk their bigger paychecks, click here).

I honestly cannot imagine how the Democrats can successfully sell that one.

The next change:

Increase the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 25 percent. Up until this year, the United States labored under the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. As a result, jobs and capital were fleeing America for more normal tax rates that could be found in tax havens like France and China (saracasm font very much activated). Finally, after many years of bipartisan consensus that the U.S. corporate rate had become an impediment to attracting new jobs and investment, Congress cut the rate all the way from 35 to 21 percent. Even doing that only puts us in the middle of the pack of developed nations, but that’s a heck of a lot better than dead last.


As a result of this change, companies like Fiat Chrysler, Amgen, and Amicus Therapeutics (among many others) have announced new factories and jobs would be built in America, not in other countries.

Again, do we really want to undo the benefits of this tax cut?

The attack on American prosperity continues:

Bring back the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 4 million families. Up until this year, 4 million upper middle class families had to calculate their income taxes two different ways, and then pay the higher result. This was due to a provision of the law known as the “alternative minimum tax” or AMT. Millions more had to at least pay a tax preparer to run the calculation, even if they didn’t end up paying the AMT. The new tax law all but repealed the AMT for 99 percent of these families thanks to a higher AMT “standard deduction.” Congressional Democrats would bring back the dreaded AMT, which especially hit hard two-income white collar families with kids in New York, New Jersey, and California.

And finally–bring back the tax on money already taxed at least once (if not more):

Cut the “death tax” standard deduction in half. Over the past few decades, no tax has proven more unpopular in every single poll than the death tax, the federal tax on estates. 60 to 70 percent of poll respondents consistently call for its full repeal. The new tax law didn’t repeal the death tax, but it did the next best thing–it doubled the death tax’s “standard deduction” from $5.5 million to $11 million (and twice that for surviving spouses). As a result, far fewer family businesses and farms will be subject to the death tax, and many smaller firms can shed the costly insurance, legal, and actuarial costs of avoiding the death tax. Like the top personal rate, the death tax is not something that really affects the rich, who have plenty of resources to avoid the levy. Rather, it hits hardest those companies profitable enough to worry about it but not profitable enough to not worry about, if you catch my meaning.

Remember, this is what you will get (along with the attempted impeachment of President Trump) if the Democrats regain control of the House or the Senate. Yikes.


This Is Wonderful News

The Washington Examiner posted an article today stating that President Trump has pardoned Kristian Saucier. “Who is Kristian Saucier?” you ask. He is the former Navy submariner who was sentenced to a year in prison during the 2016 campaign for taking pictures inside a nuclear submarine.

The article reports:

Saucier, now 31, was 22 years old when he took the cellphone photos in 2009. He pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized retention of national defense information and his attorneys unsuccessfully requested the “Clinton deal,” meaning little if any punishment.

The six photos found on a cellphone Saucier discarded were deemed “confidential,” the lowest level of classification, even though some depicted the vessel’s nuclear reactor. Clinton, by contrast, sent and received highly classified information on a private email server. In pleading guilty, Saucier admitted destroying evidence after being questioned.

Saucier told the Washington Examiner earlier this year that a felony conviction made it hard to find work. He works as a garbage man to support his family. While in prison, the family’s cars were repossessed and his home is in foreclosure.

“We’re struggling,” Saucier said in January, describing frequent calls from credit card debt collectors and an electricity bill payment plan. “No one will hire me because I’m a felon … All the skills I worked so hard for in the military are useless.”

Before the pardon, Saucier had several months left of wearing an ankle monitor.

This man’s life was ruined because of pictures on a discarded cell phone. He should not have taken the pictures, but the case definitely provides a contrast to the way Hillary Clinton‘s private server was handled.

Moving Forward Slowly

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial today about the economic numbers released today. The editorial is cautiously optimistic.

The editorial reports:

If you’re looking for good news in the latest jobs numbers, it’s hard to know where to start.

First, 313,000 was 50,000 more than expected, and is the biggest monthly gain in jobs in a year and a half.

In fact, since the recession ended in June 2009, there have only been six months in which job gains beat this number — which doesn’t say much for President Obama’s economic performance.

Better still, these employment gains were across the board. In fact, almost a third of the increase was in goods-producing industries, which climbed at a rate more than twice as fast as the overall job market.

The only part of the economy that didn’t grow was government, which can also be seen as good news. The federal workforce, in fact, dropped in February, and is now 14,000 lower than when Trump took office

At 4.1%, the overall unemployment rate is at a 17-year low, while the unemployment rates among blacks and Hispanics remain at historic lows.

But the employment numbers also show why, despite these strong gains, the economy is still far from “full employment.”

The article further reports that 653,000 people rejoined the labor force in February. That is really good news.

The editorial also notes the change in the workforce participation levels:

As a result, the employment-to-population ratio climbed to 60.4% in February. That’s higher than it ever got during Obama’s eight years in office. Better still, the employment-to-population ratio among those of prime working age jumped to 79.3%, its highest level in almost a decade.

And the labor force participation rate — the share of people looking or who have jobs — is now up to 63%, after having fallen steadily during Obama’s years (it went from 65.7% when he took office to 62.7% when he left).

There are still 5.1 million  Americans not in the labor force. Hopefully as the economy improves and the regulations on food stamps and welfare programs tighten, they will be able to find jobs.

Some Of Our Educated People Have Gone Over The Edge

Yesterday Todd Starnes posted an article about Simmons College. Simmons is a beautiful college in Boston that has a stellar reputation.

The article reports:

If you happen to be in the library at Simmons College in Boston – and somebody sneezes — whatever you do — don’t say “God bless you.”

That’s because the librarians believe that the phrase “God Bless You” can spark something worse than a microagression. They fear it could spark an Islamophobic microaggression.

Merriam-Webster defines micro aggression as:

a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority)

  • A digital photo project run by a Fordham University student about “racial microaggressions” features minority students holding up signs with comments like “You’re really pretty … for a dark-skin girl.”
  • —Jinnie Spiegler
  • There is a real and worthy conversation taking place in this country now, particularly among young people, around the idea of microaggressions—slight, often unintended discriminatory comments or behaviors.
  • Charles M. Blow

; also : behavior or speech that is characterized by such comments or actions

  • … argues that the power of microaggression lies in its invisibility to the perpetrator, who typically finds it difficult to believe that he or she possesses biased attitudes.
  • —Emily Skop

News flash–we all have biased attitudes of some sort. Micro aggression is a relatively new concept. It is generally used to shut up people with ideas you don’t agree with. Accusing someone of micro aggression is actually a form of censorship or bullying. It is a shame that the expression has become common on our college campuses in an effort to prevent non-liberal ideas from appearing.

Todd Starnes concludes his article by saying:

“In North America (and throughout much of the western world), people who follow Christianity have institutional power, therefore Islamomisia is a systematized discrimination or antagonism directed against Muslim people due to their religion or perceived religious, national or ethnic identity associated with Islam,” the document states.

It’s not an official college policy, mind you, but — you know the drill.

The librarians — a real sensitive bunch – warn that phrases like “God bless you” and “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Easter” can make Muslims feel slighted.

The resource guide also warned students to be wary of something called “Christian privilege.”

“In the United States and many other Western nations, Christianity and its various denominations and religious practices hold institutional and cultural power,” the guide states. “Christian privilege is the unearned benefit that Christians in the US receive that members of other faiths (or non-religious people) do not.”

For example, if you expect to get a day off on Good Friday or Christmas Eve — you have Christian privilege.

If you can worship freely, without fear of violence of threats, you have Christian privilege.

Clearly, the librarians at Simmons College have plenty of book smarts — but they don’t have the sense the Good Lord gave a goose.

Bless their hearts.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. If those principles are not what you choose to live under, please feel free to live elsewhere.

Why The Republicans Need To Remain In Control Of Congress

Do you like your tax cut? Do you like the growth of opportunity due to the ending of some of the regulatory state? Well if you do, you need to vote for a conservative in November. Hint–as far as I know, almost all of the conservative Democrats have left the party. Even the few (I can think of one offhand) conservative Democrats in Congress vote with the Democrats when their vote is needed, so they are primarily Democrats. So why is it important for you  that the Republicans hold Congress.

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial yesterday detailing the Democrats’ plans if they take over Congress this year. The first item (although not mentioned in the article) is the impeachment of President Trump. They have no idea what charges to impeach him on, but they don’t like him and want him gone. Good luck with that. But they do have other plans that could actually happen if they become the majority.

The editorial reports:

Democrats have a new plan to win over voters in November. Instead of letting taxpayers keep the money they’re getting from Trump’s tax cuts, they want government to spend $1 trillion of it on wasteful government projects.

 Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer outlined this plan on Wednesday, calling it a “better deal” for Americans.

What it entails is “rolling back” $1 trillion worth of the Republican tax cuts that just went into effect, and spending that money on roads, bridges, schools, electric grid and so on.

There are several problems with this approach, not least of which is that what Schumer is actually proposing is a $1 trillion tax hike on Americans to finance $1 trillion worth of new federal spending.

It is, in other words, just good old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberalism.

So what is this really about? In Washington, power is based on how much money you control. The establishment politicians in Washington consolidate their power by increasing the amount of money they control. It doesn’t matter that the money rightfully belongs to the people who earn it–the establishment politicians want it!

The editorial concludes:

Unlike Trump’s infrastructure plan, which relies on private investors and states to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure where and when it’s needed, Democrats want all the money to come from the federal government.

We’ve already seen the results of this approach with President Obama’s failed stimulus, which dumped massive amounts of federal tax dollars into “shovel ready” projects, only to see the money frittered away, few of the promised jobs created, and the nation’s infrastructure barely improved as a result.

They also propose spending tens of billions on rural broadband, despite the fact that the private sector is already finding ways to do that.

There’s also the flagrant hypocrisy of Democrats who, just a few weeks ago were decrying the GOP tax cuts because they would “explode the deficit.” Now they are proposing to run deficits of equal magnitude, in order to pay for more government instead of tax cuts.

According to the Washington Post, Schumer says the Democrats’ infrastructure plan will “set up a stark contrast for voters ahead of the midterm elections.”

He’s right about that.

Republicans passed a set of increasingly popular pro-growth tax cuts that are boosting the economy and incomes of middle class families.

Democrats are pushing $1 trillion tax hikes that will be wasted on government boondoggles.

The choice for voters should be easy.

If you want to keep more of the money you earn, vote Republican in November. The Republicans will make policies that keep the recovery going. If you want to go back to the Obama economy, vote Democrat.


Priorities Matter–Even With Private Money

Obviously anyone making a donation to an organization might put strings on that donation. Sometimes those strings make sense; sometimes they don’t. The students march on Washington to promote infringing on the Second Amendment is not really a student-led movement–there is a lot of money coming in from private sources.

A website called posted an article on March 1st that goes into some of the history of the funding of the students.

The article reports:

On February 28, BuzzFeed came out with the actual story: Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying in Tallahassee, a teacher’s union organizing the buses that got the kids there, Michael Bloomberg’s groups and the Women’s March working on the upcoming March For Our Lives, doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, and training for student activists provided by federally funded Planned Parenthood.

The president of the American Federation of Teachers told BuzzFeed they’re also behind the national school walkout, which journalists had previously assured the public was the sole work of a teenager. (I’d thought teachers were supposed to get kids into school, but maybe that’s just me.)

In other words, the response was professionalized.

The article continues with some of the other groups involved in funding other protests:

…major players and organizations — including Everytown, Giffords, Move On, Planned Parenthood, and the Women’s March LA — told BuzzFeed News they are helping the students with logistics, strategy, and planning for next month’s March for Our Lives rally and beyond. Much of the specific resources the groups are providing to the Parkland students remains unclear — as is the full list of supporting organizations — but there are broad outlines.

Giffords, an organization started by former US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that fights gun violence, is working with Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America to plan the main march on Washington — as well as sister rallies across the country…

Everytown for Gun Safety — bankrolled mostly by Michael Bloomberg — recently secured a $1 million donation from entrepreneur and philanthropist Eli Broad.

MoveOn said it will encourage its millions of members to follow and promote the March for Our Lives movement on social media and attend the rally next month. The group said it had offered support in organizing logistics such as security and portable toilets, but it is unclear if the students have taken them up on their offer.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood said the group is “teaching and hosting trainings” for young activists across the US “to keep momentum going so they don’t get burned out.”

…In addition to the millions of dollars raised by A-list celebrities including Oprah, George and Amal Clooney, Steven Spielberg, and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the March for Our Lives GoFundMe page has raised an additional $2.7 million as of Tuesday.

Now contrast that with what is going on in Baltimore. On January 9th, The Baltimore Sun reported:

Hundreds of students, parents and teachers poured into the Baltimore school system’s headquarters Tuesday night to question officials about plumbing and heating problems that left students shivering in class — or out of school altogether — since returning from winter break.

Families stood outside the North Avenue headquarters with signs that read “Don’t be cold-hearted” and “40 degrees is inhumane” as the city school board met inside. Parents urged accountability from school board members and accused them of ignoring problems facing city children.

On March 7th a website called bluntforcetruth reported:

The Baltimore city school system could not heat the schools this past winter.

Parents stormed the school system headquarters in January to demand the schools raise the temperature in the classrooms.

But that didn’t stop Baltimore Mayor from offering to send 60 busloads of kids to an anti-gun rally in Washington DC later this month.

Mayor Catherine Pugh announced at the Tuesday rally that the city will send 60 buses to the march against guns in Washington DC. later this month. The broke city will also provide food and free T-shirts.

The Mayor has stated that the expenses involved were paid by private donors and therefore are not related to the financial problems that the schools are currently having. I would like to suggest that if private donors are willing to pay for the students to go to Washington to protest the Second Amendment, shouldn’t we ask the private donors to help with the expenses of making the schools a reasonable place for the students to learn?

I guess indoctrinating our students is more important that providing enough heat in the classroom for them to learn–particularly to leftist activist groups.

Charles Krauthammer Had It Right

The following is a quote from Charles Krauthammer in October of 2016:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This brings us back full circle to the beginning. The question was originally: Why did she have the private server? She said convenience, obviously that was ridiculous…

It was obvious she was hiding something.

And think about it, she set it up in 2009, before becoming Secretary of State. So, she anticipated having exchanges that she would not want anyone to see. So, we’ve been asking ourselves on this set for a year almost, what exactly didn’t she want people to see?

Well, now we know.

And as we speculated, the most plausible explanation was the rank corruption of the Clinton Foundation, and its corrupt — I don’t know if it’s illegal, but corrupt relationship with the State Department.

And her only defense as we saw earlier– the Democrats are saying, well, there was nothing she did… that was corrupted by donations. You can believe that if you want, but there’s a reason that people give donations in large amounts, and that’s to influence the outcome of decisions. So, this — we are getting unfolding to us, exactly what she anticipated having to hide, and it is really dirty business.

The quote was posted at Real Clear Politics.

This is a quote from then FBI Comey’s statement about Hillary Clinton’s emails. It is taken from the Los Angeles Times:

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

The underline is mine.

Regardless of how you feel about Hillary Clinton, mishandling classified information is a crime that ordinary people go to jail for committing. If there are not consequences for breaking laws, why do we have those laws?



This Is Not How You Promote Racial Harmony

The following video was posted at YouTube:

Reparations will not bring racial harmony to America. The people asking for reparations were never slaves and the people asked to pay them were never slave owners. Many of the people asking for reparations do not even have ancestors that were in America during slavery. Currently the government of South Africa is taking land from white farmers and giving it to black farmers. That is a form of reparations, and I can guarantee that program will not bring peace either.

Slavery was wrong. Some of the indenture-ship agreements made with early Irish and other nationalities were also wrong. However, we can’t change the past. Taking money from one group of people for no reason and giving it to another group of people for no reason is not going to solve any problems. It simply convinces the group receiving the money that they are entitled to something they didn’t earn.

If you really want to see things change, bring fathers back into the homes in the black community. There are more black children living without fathers in the home than with fathers in the home. Instead of reparations, let’s talk about better schools. Let’s talk about changing the culture in the black community so that an education is something to be desired. While we are at it, let’s improve the culture in the Hispanic community and in the poor white communities. Education is the key–not necessarily college–trade school works just as well. I never went to college–I just wasn’t interested, so I spent two years in a liberal arts trade school program instead. It served me well.

Instead of worrying about reparations, let’s get all Americans working, earning a good living, and taking pride in what they are doing. That is a much more certain road to racial harmony than reparations.


All The Roads Seem To Lead To The Same Place

John Solomon and Alison Spann posted an article at The Hill yesterday (updated today) about a new development in the Russia-Trump-Collusion investigation. It seems that every lead that formed the basis for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor goes back to the Clintons. Somehow that does not seem like an incredible coincidence.

The article is detailed with a lot of reference information, so I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article. It really is chilling to see how the power of government could be abused so totally as to be turned against one man.

The article reports:

The Australian diplomat whose tip in 2016 prompted the Russia-Trump investigation previously arranged one of the largest foreign donations to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable efforts, documents show.

Former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer’s role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS is chronicled in decade-old government memos archived on the Australian foreign ministry’s website.

Downer and former President Clinton jointly signed a Memorandum of Understanding in February 2006 that spread out the grant money over four years for a project to provide screening and drug treatment to AIDS patients in Asia.

We know that the dossier had ties to the Clintons. Now we know that the other basis for the investigation also had ties to the Clintons.

The Clintons handled the money with their usual level of integrity:

In the years that followed, the project won praise for helping thousands of HIV-infected patients in Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, China and Indonesia, but also garnered criticism from auditors about “management weaknesses” and inadequate budget oversight, the memos show.

The article observes:

Downer, now Australia’s ambassador to London, provided the account of a conversation with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a London bar in 2016 that became the official reason the FBI opened the Russia counterintelligence probe.

But lawmakers say the FBI didn’t tell Congress about Downer’s prior connection to the Clinton Foundation. Republicans say they are concerned the new information means nearly all of the early evidence the FBI used to justify its election-year probe of Trump came from sources supportive of the Clintons, including the controversial Steele dossier.

“The Clintons’ tentacles go everywhere. So, that’s why it’s important,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) chairman of a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that has been taking an increasingly visible role defending the Trump administration in the Russia probe. “We continue to get new information every week it seems that sort of underscores the fact that the FBI hasn’t been square with us.”

The Democrats of course replied with their usual spin:

Democrats accuse the GOP of overreaching, saying Downer’s role in trying to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS shouldn’t be used to question his assistance to the FBI.

“The effort to attack the FBI and DOJ as a way of defending the President continues,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence panel. “Not content to disparage our British allies and one of their former intelligence officers, the majority now seeks to defame our Australian partners as a way of undermining the Russia probe. It will not succeed, but may do lasting damage to our institutions and allies in the process.”

Nick Merrill, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman, said any effort to connect the 2006 grant with the current Russia investigation was “laughable.”

I guess it’s reassuring to know that the Clintons’ corruption is not merely limited to America.

The Clintons also responded to the implication that the money might not have been spent exactly as warranted:

Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, said the focus should be on the foundation’s success helping tens of thousands of AIDS patients.

It really is time to send Mr. Mueller packing and clean out the upper levels of the FBI and Department of Justice. They have been hopelessly compromised. Every one of the people who provided the foundation for the investigation of President Trump has ties to the Clintons. There is no way that the Special Prosecutor should ever have been appointed. Unless Robert Mueller is fired and the investigation ended, we will never see equal justice under the law in America. Note that the questionable activities of the Clinton Foundation or the various scandals of the Clintons have never been fully investigated or prosecuted.

Policy Changes Have Consequences

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about a change in gun policy at the University of Kansas.

The following is a statement from the web page of the University of Kansas:

Beginning July 1, 2017, any individual who is 21 years of age or older and who is not prohibited or disqualified by law and who is lawfully eligible to carry a concealed handgun in Kansas shall not be precluded from doing so on University campuses, including all facilities owned or leased by the University, except (1) on the Kansas City, Kansas campus of the KU Medical Center in the Health Care District; (2) in buildings and public areas of buildings for which adequate security measures are provided or, (3) in a specified restricted access area of a building. Within such restricted access areas, concealed carry will be banned. Individuals who are not employees of the University may be authorized access through a restricted access entrance only pursuant to a University screening process that is compliant with the provisions of the PFPA.

So what happened when that policy was put into effect?

The Daily Caller reports:

Interestingly, although there have been 14 weapons violations since 2008, the tally for 2017 was exactly zero.

Yes, you read that right — zero weapons violations at campus carry-friendly Kansas University, despite the fact that actual weapons on campus undoubtedly increased.

The KU Office of Public Safety’s annual crime statistics list is released each spring and includes only actual crimes under the law, not other university policy violations.

Although KU police seemed to attribute the decline to added police and security as well as their use of “security technology” like on-campus cameras, the lack of gun crimes nevertheless does nothing to bolster liberal gun control arguments.

Gun-free zones tell a potential shooter that he will meet no opposition. When concealed carry is in effect, the risk is much higher for a person who wants to go on a shooting spree–it may cost him his life. Good guys with guns are really the only way to stop bad guys with guns.

You can argue for more gun laws all you want, but this is what happens when concealed carry is in effect.

Shutting Down The Free Speech Of Conservatives

The alternative media has had an impact on the politics of America. Facebook and Twitter have been a place where conservatives could share information and ideas. Well, that is changing. According to an article posted at The Gateway Pundit yesterday, google and Facebook are purging conservative content from Facebook and YouTube. That is not a surprise, it is simply an unfortunate truth. Because many arguments by the political left are based on emotion rather than fact, they do not like engaging in rational debate. Thus, if they can, they shut down the conservative side of the debate.

The article lists the websites that have been blacklisted or targeted by Facebook and google:

Young Cons: Extremely popular conservative news site and received millions of daily readers during the election.  The website received nearly all of its traffic from Facebook. Since 2016 Facebook shut down stories to Young Cons.  Each algorithm change meant less traffic for the popular website.  YoungCons was blacklisted by Facebook and struggles to maintain readers.  The site regularly switches domains to save traffic. With over 4 million fans one of the popular conservative pages on Facebook until Facebook blocked all traffic to the website.  The page was forced to change the domain to save traffic numbers.

Right Wing News:  Right Wing News grew to an enormous website in the past few years thanks its popularity on Facebook. In July of 2015, in just a week, the Right Wing News Facebook page reached 133 million people. Because conservatives were sharing content they were interested in, Right Wing News (with 3.6 million Facebook likes ) was driving the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in America.  Since the 2016 election Facebook blocked traffic to the website.  Owner John Hawkins announced he was shutting down the website in January.

Western Journalism: Newsweek reported that the site has grown from receiving 1,000 page views a day in 2009[3] to more than 1 million during 2016. The website was averaging around 6 million page views a day according to Quantcast during the election. Today it is down to around 500,000 a day. Western Journalism was blacklisted by Facebook.

The Gateway Pundit: TGP was ranked as the 4th most influential conservative news source during the 2016 election. The site in 2016 received nearly a third of its traffic from Facebook. This past weekend Facebook blocked all traffic from recent stories to the website. TGP advertised with Facebook and is another top conservative website blacklisted by the company. TGP is also shadow-banned by Google and frequently attacked and smeared by the liberal media.

President Trump Facebook page:  A recent algorithm change has caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%. In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement, reported Breitbart’s Alum Bokhari.

Independent Journal Review:  A massive conservative website based on Facebook audience.  The Independent Journal Review (IJR) terminated a number of its employees on Thursday, leaving an unclear future for the millennial-focused conservative website that has recently faced a declining audience.  IDF was also shadow-banned and blacklisted.  Breitbart was the most influential conservative news source in 2016 with a massive audience.  Since the election Breitbart is constantly targeted and smeared by far left operations.  Breitbart advertising was targeted by Sleeping Giants and other Soros sites.

InfoWars:  Infowars is another dominant conservative site with enormous traffic.  After several years of video production and tens of thousands of video YouTube gave Infowars its third strike this week and threatens to shut the YouTube Channel down.

Rightside Broadcasting: This YouTube Channel had millions of views before the election.  Since 2016 YouTube has shadow-banned all of their videos.  YouTube has classified its videos of President Trump at a rally as hate speech.  YouTube has demonetized hundreds of its videos.  YouTube hides its videos.  Income for the site is down 95% since the election.

Natural News: A very prominent health website and the world’s top source on natural health. The site receives tens of thousands of readers every day. YouTube wiped out over 1,700 videos covering everything from nutrition, natural medicine, history, science and current events.

Prager Report:  PragerU, a conservative educational site, is suing Google and its subsidiary YouTube, accusing the video site of censoring its online videos because of their political leanings.  YouTube has banned several of its videos including segments on abortion and Islam.   Prager U has a massive conservative audience in the millions.

Pamela  Pamela is well-known for speaking out against radical Islam.  ISIS has threatened to behead her several times.  During the election PG had over 100,000 daily views from Facebook.  Today Facebook has shut down most of her traffic.  Her website suffered serious losses in revenue since the election.

Diamond and Silk: Pro-Trump YouTube sensations have a suit against YouTube. The Trump supporters announced in August 2017 that 95% of their videos have been demonetized on YouTube.

I will admit that I do not have 100% confidence in all of these websites, but it is troubling that they are being taken down. We may actually have to fight for the First Amendment rights many of us took for granted for so long.

Why American Need To Keep Their Guns

As I write this, there are a number of bills going through Congress banning various rifles, magazines, etc. Most of the weapons being banned are being banned out of ignorance–they are scary looking or are distantly related to military rifles–they are not military rifles and do not have the multiple firing capability of military rifles, but they look like them. A lot of Americans are not familiar with the various types of guns, and these laws make sense to them. These laws do not make sense in relationship to the Second Amendment and what it was about. These laws also have no relationship with the horrific event in Florida–none of these laws would have made an ounce of difference. One of the things Congress wants to ban is high-capacity magazines. According to The Daily Wire (on Friday), the Florida shooter only used 10-round magazines because the larger magazines would not fit in his duffel bag. The Daily Wire also noted that jamming is a major problem with the AR-15 platform if the weapon is not properly cleaned.

Does anyone really think that if the AR-15 had been banned that the shooter would not have used another type of gun? Also, why are we focusing on the gun when it is very obvious that had the shooter’s previous problems with the law been reported, a thorough background check would have prevented from buying a gun? I don’t know whether or not that would have stopped him–criminals seem to be able to get their hands on guns, and other weapons have been used in attacks on students. Taking guns away from innocent people solves nothing. Making sure mentally ill people who have shown that they are dangerous don’t get guns would be a much better approach.

So why do we need the Second Amendment?

On March 1st, The Blaze posted a statement from Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained to the ladies on The View:

“Let me tell you why I’m a defender of the Second Amendment,” she began.

“I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late fifties, early sixties,” she explained. “There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham Police were going to protect you.”

“And so when White Knight Riders would come through our neighborhood,” she said, “my father and his friends would take their guns and they’d go to the head of the neighborhood, it’s a little cul-de-sac and they would fire in the air, if anybody came through.”

“I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody,” she continued. “But they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up.”

“And so, I don’t favor some things like gun registration,” she said to a suddenly silent crowd.

“That said, it’s time to have a national conversation about how we can deal with the problems we have. It’s not going to be any single fix to the terrible events at Parkland,” she concluded.

The Second Amendment is there to protect Americans from a government that may not protect them. It is there to give Americans the ultimate responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their families.

The following is a quote regarding World War II:

I would never invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. — Admiral Yamamoto

There is no proof that this quote is real, but you get the idea–a country with armed, trained citizens is in a much better position to protect itself from both internal and external threats. Those who are trying to ban scary-looking guns are a threat to America’s freedom and are attempting to do something unconstitutional. What happened in Florida was tragic, but disarming law-abiding citizens will not solve anything.

Some Thoughts On The FISA Court

The following video from One America News was posted at YouTube on Friday:

What happened during the end of the Obama Administration was a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens by the abuse of a secret court. It is the obligation of the government to insure that never happens again. The surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team makes the wiretapping engaged in by the Watergate burglars look like child’s play. The use of government agencies for political purposes was something that happened more than once in the Obama Administration–the IRS was eventually forced to pay fines to the conservative organizations it refused to grant tax-exempt status to. The purpose of not granting the tax-exempt status was to silence organizations engaging in conservative speech during the 2012 elections. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is a dangerous thing. Remember, it is always possible that someday the shoe will be on the other foot. If we don’t end the practice of using the government against people who disagree with us now, it will not end.

The Russian Collusion You Haven’t Heard About

On March 1st, the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology posted the following Press Release:

SST Committee Staff Report Reveals Russia’s Social Media Meddling in U.S. Energy Markets

Mar 1, 2018
Press Release

WASHINGTON – U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today released a staff report uncovering Russia’s extensive efforts to influence U.S. energy markets through divisive and inflammatory posts on social media platforms. The report details Russia’s motives in interfering with U.S. energy markets and influencing domestic energy policy and its manipulation of Americans via social media propaganda. The report includes examples of Russian-propagated social media posts.

Chairman Smith: “This report reveals that Russian agents created and spread propaganda on U.S. social media platforms in an obvious attempt to influence the U.S. energy market. Russia benefits from stirring up controversy about U.S. energy production. U.S. energy exports to European countries are increasing, which means they will have less reason to rely upon Russia for their energy needs. This, in turn, will reduce Russia’s influence on Europe to Russia’s detriment and Europe’s benefit. That’s why Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”

The report’s key findings:

  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 9,097 Russian posts or tweets regarding U.S. energy policy or a current energy event on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 4,334 IRA accounts across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • According to information provided by Twitter, more than four percent of all IRA tweets were related to energy or environmental issues, a significant portion of content when compared to the eight percent of IRA tweets that were related to the election in the U.S.
  • Russia exploited American social media as part of its concerted effort to disrupt U.S. energy markets and influence domestic energy policy.
  • The IRA targeted pipelines, fossil fuels, climate change and other divisive issues to influence public policy in the U.S.

The report can be found here.


On October 31, 2017, Chairman Smith sent letters to Twitter and Facebook to continue its probe into Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets via social media platforms. The letters cited additional evidence that Russian agents engaged in anti-U.S. energy activities on the platforms, including Facebook-owned Instagram, and reiterated Chairman Smith’s September request for information from the companies.

On September 26, 2017, Chairman Smith requested documents and information from Twitter and Facebook related to Russian entities purchasing anti-U.S. energy advertisements on social media platforms operated by the companies, including Facebook-owned Instagram.

On July 7, 2017, Chairman Smith and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting that the Treasury Department investigate allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. energy market through covertly funding radical environmental groups opposed to fossil fuels.

115th Congress
This is much more important than the current expensive, political, and endless investigation being carried out by Robert Mueller, yet somehow the press has not paid very much attention to it. It is time that we take a look at some of the funding of some of the radical environmental groups. For those of you old enough to remember, when the Soviet Union fell and America had access to some of their historic documents, we learned that many of the anti-war organizations of the 1960’s and 1970’s were Soviet funded. Most Americans had no idea that was happening. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

One Major Cause Of Inflation

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about inflation. The editorial shows the contrast between inflation in areas of our economy heavily regulated by the government and inflation in areas less regulated.

Here is the chart:

The chart was put together by economist Mark Perry, who tracked the changes in prices over the past 20 years for various goods and services. (Perry’s blog, Carpe Diem, is a must read for anyone looking for clarity on economic matters.)

Note the impact free market capitalism has on inflation–it keeps it under control.

The article concludes:

The ones below the inflation line — many of which actually saw prices decline over the past two decades — are all in highly competitive industries: autos, cellphones, clothing, software, TVs, toys. Two that track inflation, not surprisingly since they account for much of the nation’s spending, are food and housing.

But look at the areas where inflation has been surging: they fall into two broad categories: health care and college education. What do these have in common? Both are subject to massive amounts of government subsidies.

In the case of health care, the federal government now accounts for more than 40% of all health spending. It subsidizes care for the elderly, the poor, and now thanks to ObamaCare, the middle class. Given that health care spending makes up almost one-fifth of GDP, this is a big deal.

As to colleges, federal aid has exploded over the past 20 years, climbing 51% since 1997 — after adjusting for inflation — according to the College Board, which tracks these numbers. Last year, loan subsidies, grants and special tax brakes added up to $113.8 billion.

All that subsidy money was premised on the goal of making these things more affordable. The result is, for many, the exact opposite. By paying most of the tab, the government has insulated consumers from the true cost of these things — a recipe for runaway prices.

Yet instead of dealing with the cause, policymakers keep talking about either adding still more subsidy fuel to the fire, or imposing price controls.

If policymakers want to tackle inflation, the first step would be to review those federal policies that are driving it.

Removing the overabundance of government regulations on businesses is good for everyone. We need to elect leaders who will do that.

One Rule For Thee And A Different Rule For Me

Europe is upset at President Trump’s imposing tariffs on imported steel. Well, let’s take a look at some of Europe’s past actions.

According to a story in US News in April 2017, the European Commission imposed taxes on Chinese steel exported to Europe. The taxes (or duties, if you prefer) were betwween 18.1 percent and 35.9 percent.

Meanwhile, CNN reported:

Trump said Thursday that he would impose a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports, a move that has been vociferously condemned by key US allies and trading partners.

The justification for the tariffs – national security concerns — also drew harsh criticism. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel described the administration’s reasoning as “incomprehensible.”

“The EU must respond decisively to US punitive tariffs, which endangers thousands of jobs in Europe. There should be no doubt about that in Washington,” Gabriel said on Friday.

Winterstein said the 28 countries of the EU would respond to the tariffs as a single bloc. The Commission will discuss its response when it next meets on Wednesday.

One obvious move would be to file a complaint against the US with the World Trade Organization. Analysts at UBS said Europe would have a good chance of winning, but that could take 18 months.

In the meantime, the EU could introduce “safeguard measures” if it suddenly sees a surge in steel imports, Winterstein said. These measures could include tariffs or import quotas and can be enacted quickly.

So let’s get this straight–if America imposes tariffs on steel and begins to import less of it, the European Union would move to prevent any increased steel imports to Europe–they might even impose tariffs or import quotas. What? So it’s okay for them to protect themselves from cheap steel imports, but it’s not okay for America to protect itself from cheap steel imports. Good grief! After a while, the globalists are just boring–they are so predictable.

Freedom Of Religion Is Not Guaranteed–Even In America

CBN News posted an article today about the confirmation hearings for Russell Vought as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Vought was questioned by Senator Bernie Sanders about his Christian beliefs.

The article reports:

In a blog, Vought had defended Wheaton College for their decision to force out a professor who said Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Sanders said Vought was unfit for public service due to his Christian beliefs.

“I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith,” Vought said at his confirmation hearing.

“That post was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation,” he continued.

That enraged Sanders who became visibly agitated as he blasted Vought for his belief that Jesus is the only path to salvation.

Would Senator Sanders have been as upset if Mr. Vought had defended a secular college for doing something that reinforced their secularism?

The article further reports:

FRC’s (Family Research Council) president, Tony Perkins, released the following statement after the confirmation:

“It was a shocking moment to watch a United States Senator declare that holding to a central tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the only way of salvation is enough to render a well-qualified nominee unfit for public service. Vought’s biblical view of salvation is no different than what Billy Graham preached for more than six decades.”

“Thankfully, 49 senators and Vice President Pence in his tie-breaking vote sent a message that public servants can express their biblical views on salvation without fear of being held to an unconstitutional religious test.”

“The thought that Sanders is a senator who almost won the Democratic Party’s nomination for president—a man who thinks there’s no room in the public square for people who believe the Bible—is a chilling one.”

“I congratulate Russell Vought and thank President Trump and Vice President Pence for standing up for the freedom of every American to believe and live out those beliefs in the public square,” Perkins concluded.

I am not sure what Mr. Vought’s statement regarding a Christian college has to do with being confirmed as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He was confirmed–Vice-President Pence cast the deciding vote. No Democrats voted to confirm him. This is ridiculous. Resisting an elected President and his choices for positions is not a reasonable party platform, and I hope the Democrats lose seats this year for their continuing partisanship and their lack of any positive platform. Nominees need to be confirmed on the basis of qualifications rather than party lines or religious beliefs. It is unconstitutional to consider someone’s religion during the confirmation process.

Our entire legal system is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic found in the Ten Commandments. It is totally ironic that someone who obviously believes in that ethic would be treated as if that is somehow incompatible with our government.