The State Department Announces

The New York Post is reporting today that the State Department has announced that America with be withdrawing from UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) because of UNESCO’s anti-Israel bias. This is long overdue.

In June 2012, I posted an article illustrating how some of UNESCO’s money is spent. The article featured a cartoon teaching Palestinian children that Jews are killing them. That is not a recipe for peace.

The article at the New York Post concludes:

But the Israel-Palestinian issue has been a major point of contention.

Last year, Israel removed its UNESCO ambassador after the agnecy stated that one of Jerusalem’s holy sites is specifically a “Muslim holy site of worship,” according to Reuters.

Senior American officials, including UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, have repeatedly denounced UNESCO, which the US also withdrew from during the Cold War under then-President Reagan.

Washington, which viewed the agency as mismanaged and used for political reasons, rejoined it in 2003.

Until the people who now live in the Gaza Strip do something other than to send rockets into Israel, I see no reason to recognize Palestine as a nation. The world does not need another terrorist state. In recent years we have seen rockets from the Gaza Strip aimed at civilian targets in Israel and tunnels dug to facilitate attacks on Israeli children. Western countries have funded these activities in the name of humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, very little of the humanitarian aid has gone to humans–it has been used to buy weapons and create tunnels to attack Israel. If the United Nations continues to support these activities, we will have no choice but to withdraw from the United Nations completely.

Legal Plunder

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. In 1850, he published a pamphlet called “The Law.”

The website which contains the translation of “The Law” includes the following statement:

As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are — word for word — equally valid today.

“The Law” includes the following definition of ‘legal plunder‘:

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

This statement pretty much describes the current tax system in America.

An article posted in The New York Post yesterday further illustrates this point.

The article in The New York Post states:

Americans spent more money on taxes than they did on food and clothing last year, according to data released earlier this week.

In an assessment of “Consumer Expenditures” for 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the average bill for federal, state and local taxes was $10,489.

By comparison, Americans spent $9,006 on food and clothes, with most of that going toward food.

CNSNews.com first pointed out the findings. While it may not come as a surprise that American households are shelling out to Uncle Sam, the data showed that bill has risen sharply in recent years — the average tax bill rose 41 percent overall since 2013.

According to the BLS, federal income taxes rose from $5,743 to $8,367 in that period. State and local income taxes rose from $1,629 to $2,046.

The stats come as President Trump prepares to pressure Congress to pass tax reform. In a Missouri speech on Wednesday, he called for simplifying the system and lowering rates.

More importantly, what are our taxes being used for? Are they being used for purposes outlined in the U.S. Constitution? Are they being used strictly for national defense, or are they being used to prop up a political system in Washington that will never be satisfied with the amount of money it controls and will always want more money from the people who earn it?

The article in The New York Post states that the largest expense for Americans in 2016 was housing. It is time to let Americans who work keep the money they earn. Washington needs to learn to do with less.

When News Media Forgets To Check Facts

The New York Post posted an article yesterday criticizing Joel Osteen for closing his church to refugees from the hurricane in Houston. I don’t know enough about Joel Osteen to compliment or criticize his ministry, but I tend to get annoyed when criticism is unwarranted.

Boston 25 News posted pictures of Joel Osteen’s church at the present time. Would you seek shelter here?

Meanwhile, the church has posted on its Twitter page that it is coordinating with the city and collecting supplies to distribute to Houston area shelters.

The media loves to criticize anyone claiming to be a Christian. As I said, I am not familiar with this man’s ministry, but obviously the criticism in this case is totally bogus.

President Trump Does Something Good For New York State

The New York Post reported yesterday that President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have kept their promise to crack down on the MS-13 gang. The gang is known for terrorizing immigrant communities.

The article reports:

Of the 45 N​ew ​Y​ork​-area gang arrests over the last month by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security, 39 were affiliated with MS-13, which has been blamed for a string of recent murders in normally placid Long Island, the feds said.

Those who are not charged with crimes will be processed for deportation, the feds said.

Authorities announced the arrests Wednesday as part of a newly formed task force aimed at MS-13 in New York City and Long Island.

The task force — dubbed “Operation Matador” — was put together in May following a high-profile visit by Sessions to Long Island to address MS-13’s growing presence in the suburbs.

Members of this gang are not people we want walking the streets of America.

The article lists some of the activities of MS-13:

MS-13, known for drug trafficking, kidnapping, human smuggling, murder and sex trafficking, was labeled a “transnational criminal organization” by the Treasury Department in 2012.

President Trump has made the streets of New York City and Long Island safer by simply enforcing the laws already on the books. Thank you, sir.

This Is Not A Surprise

If you are over forty, aren’t you glad there was no one around with a cell phone when you said or did stupid things? Unless you are a really amazing person, you have probably at some time in your life said or done something stupid, rude, classless, and just awful. If you tell me you haven’t, I would seriously doubt it. Unfortunately, in the age of cell phones, there moments can be immortalized and brought out at the most inconvenient time. It’s the modern-day equivalent of your mother showing your naked baby pictures to your boyfriend. Well, some new information has come out about a sneak attack using an old event.

Breitbart reported Thursday on some recent discoveries about an audio tape that was supposed to end the Donald Trump campaign for President.

The article quotes a New York Post story:

The infamous “Access Hollywood” tape — in which President Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women by the hoo-ha — was an inside job, leaked by an NBC News staffer on Billy Bush’s own “Today” show, multiple sources tell Page Six.

“The tape was leaked by the NBC News division, by somebody at the ‘Today’ show,” says one source. “NBC News knew for a while about the existence of the tape. Billy himself had told them about it. People in the news division became frustrated that ‘Access Hollywood’ was taking too long to air it and decided it had to come out.”

“Access” had been working on airing a sanitized version of the tape, which revealed Trump’s comments but protected Bush by editing out his. But the full tape, which was leaked to the Washington Post, featured Bush goading the president. The leak got Bush fired from “Today,” which was, according to the source, part of the plan.

“The leaked tape served a dual purpose: It helped get Bush out of the way — Matt Lauer didn’t like him and felt he was a liability — and NBC thought it would derail Trump,” says the source. “But all it did was crush Billy, and, ironically, his own network was behind it.”

This is an example of major media trying to bring down a presidential candidate. Fair and balanced? I don’t think so.

I am very grateful for the internet–I can read different news sources and form my own opinion. I don’t know how the mainstream media got so biased, but it is now no longer worth paying attention to. Hopefully more Americans will begin to realize that what they hear in the mainstream media is only a small part of any story.

This Might Wake Some People Up

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about a new policy being introduced by President Donald Trump. The policy is part of President Trump’s efforts to get immigration under control and the make people  aware of the actions of some Illegal aliens.

The article reports:

President Trump plans to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the Big Apple and all other sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The list will inform citizens and others about “public safety threats associated with sanctuary” cities, according to an executive order Trump signed Wednesday.

“The [Homeland Security] Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens,” the order said.

…The list includes serious crimes such as felony assault, rape, murder and terrorism as well as gun smuggling and witness tampering.

Americans who came here illegally have already broken our laws. Those that behave in ways that are a threat to an ordered society or a threat to American citizens should be deported immediately. The list will help make Americans more aware of how much of our crime rate in some cities is attributable to non-existent borders.

This Doesn’t Deserve The Attention It Is Getting

Yesterday John Podhoretz posted an article at The New York Post about some unfounded allegations against President-elect Trump reported by Buzzfeed. John Podhoretz is not by any stretch of the imagination a Trump supporter, and these are his comments about the allegations:

So the website BuzzFeed decided to publish a series of memos that have been floating around for months alleging all kinds of terrible things about Donald Trump.

Some of those terrible allegations have to do with efforts to influence the American elections and Trump. Some of them have to do with Trump’s personal sexual conduct.

…There is literally no evidence on offer in these memos or from BuzzFeed that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true. What’s more, we know most major news organizations in America had seen them and despite their well-known institutional antipathy toward Trump, had chosen not to publish them or even make reference to them after efforts to substantiate their charges had failed.

…“Publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017,” Smith (Ben Smith, editor of Buzzfeed) writes. This is an amazing thing to say, because if you think it through, it means publishing open libels and slanders is the job of reporters in 2017.

Fake news will become more sophisticated, and fake, ambiguous, and spun-up stories will spread widely,” warned an important American editor at the end of December 2016. His name: Ben Smith. His publication: BuzzFeed.

Every day we see new evidence of the threat Donald Trump as President poses to the status quo in Washington. It is amazing. It is not just Democrats–some high level Republicans would also like very much to discredit President Trump before he takes office. If he can be stopped before he takes the oath of office, President Trump won’t be able to interfere with the cushy lifestyles that Washington politicians have acquired through insider trading, rewarding large donors, and exempting themselves from the laws that they have passed. The Buzzfeed story has been claimed as a hoax (story here). However, this won’t be the last story we hear reporting horrible things about Donald Trump. I would love to be wrong about that, but I don’t think I am.

Is Medicare Going Bankrupt?

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about the financial condition of Medicare. It seems that Medicare is really doing rather well.

The article cites some interesting statistics:

As the new Congress convenes, budget cutters are eyeing Medicare, citing forecasts the program for seniors is running out of money. But federal bean counters have erroneously predicted Medicare’s bankruptcy for decades. One reason: They don’t consider medical breakthroughs.

Another problem is medical ethicists like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who insist the elderly are a burden and that resources would be better spent on the young.

The facts prove otherwise. New medical findings give plenty of reason for optimism about the cost of caring for the elderly. According to data published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, Medicare spending on end-of-life care is dropping rapidly, down from 19 percent to 13 percent of the Medicare budget since 2000. Living to a ripe old age shouldn’t be treated like it’s a problem. It’s a bargain. Someone who lives to 97 consumes only about half as much end-of-life care as someone who dies at 68.

Dr. Emanuel has some unique ideas about aging, which are stated in the article:

Why would we emulate Zeke Emanuel, age 59, who swears that at 75, he will forego all medical care and let death come quickly? “Our older years are not of high quality,” he insists. He’ll skip them. In The Atlantic magazine, he dismissed compression of morbidity as “quintessentially American” wishful thinking, and mocked seniors for trying to “cheat death.”

Keep in mind that Dr. Emanuel was one of the people behind ObamaCare who espoused the idea of limiting medical care for older Americans. That is one of the reasons it was so surprising that the AARP supported Medicare. They betrayed their own members.

The article concludes:

Too often, Congress treats Medicare as a piggy bank — raiding it when money is needed elsewhere. In 2010, Democrats in Congress paid for over half of ObamaCare’s spending by cutting Medicare. This year, Republican lawmakers eager to control federal health spending should avoid that error and instead focus on fixing Medicaid, the money pit program for the poor, where spending per capita is growing twice as fast as for Medicare. (I added the italics to this quote.)

Medicaid spending now tops $8,000 per recipient. That’s thousands more than is spent on people in private plans. And for all that money, studies show Medicaid isn’t improving patients’ health.

By contrast, Medicare is a success story. It has transformed aging, enabling older Americans to lead longer, more independent lives than our grandparents did. The average man turning 65 today will live five years longer than in 1970. Not just more years. Quality years. What a gift.

Medicare is partially paid for by payroll deductions from both the employee and the employer totaling about 2.9 percent, so Medicare is at least partially paid for. Medicaid is a gaping hole in our pockets that does not guarantee quality care to anyone. Healthcare in America is a problem that ObamaCare has made worse. Hopefully Congress and President Trump can come up with something that provides care for everyone who needs it, but also allows free market competition to keep the costs down for everyone.

Telling The Truth Can Be Hazardous To Your Job

On Friday The New York Post posted a story about calls for the resignation of Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin. Commissioner Schulkin made the mistake of speaking truthfully to an undercover reporter for James O’Keefe‘s Project Veritas.

The article reports the Commissioner’s remarks:

“Certain neighborhoods in particular, they bus people around to vote,” he says on the tape. “They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.” Asked if he meant black and Hispanic neighborhoods, he nods: “Yeah, and Chinese, too.”

…“You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID,” he says. “You go into a building, you have to show them your ID.”

And: “People think [opposing voter-ID laws is] a liberal thing to do, but I take my vote seriously, and I don’t want 10 other people coming in negating my vote by voting for the other candidate when they aren’t even registered voters.”

The article concludes:

A guy whose job involves trying to keep elections clean vents at a party about what he sees as a threat to clean elections. How is this a firing offense?

City Democrats would be wise to just laugh the whole thing off. After all, if they take away Alan Schulkin’s job now, lots of people will conclude he was punished for telling the truth.

Honesty used to be an asset in an employee. I guess if you work for the City of New York it might not be.

We Need To Protect Free Speech

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported on a proposal by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission to limit media coverage of the 2016 election. I am sure that fact that their proposal would only limit conservative news outlets is purely coincidental.

The article reports:

In a last-minute submission Wednesday, a top Democrat on the evenly split FEC proposed that the Thursday meeting of the commission begin the process to prohibit companies with foreign ownership as small as 5 percent “from funding expenditures, independent expenditures, or electioneering communications.”

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said in her submission, “Given everything we have learned this year, it blinks reality to suggest that that there is no risk of foreign nationals taking advantage of current loopholes to intercede invisibly in American elections. This is a risk no member of the Federal Election Commission should be willing to tolerate.”

Under Weintraub’s proposal, entities that reach her foreign ownership target would conceivably be banned from advocating for a candidate’s election or defeat.

Several media giants have at least 5 percent foreign ownership, some with as much as 25 percent. Included is News Corp, which owns Fox, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times also has foreign ownership, as do many politically active firms like Ben & Jerry’s.

That prohibition could include Fox commentator Sean Hannity or Wall Street Journal editorial. And, according to one analysis, because foreign nationals also are prohibited from making electioneering communications, those media would not even be able to mention Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if just covering them.

This needs to be stopped before it even begins. Americans are smart enough to evaluate news sources. The government does not have to censor or filter news in America.

I Guess The Scandal Goes Higher Than Previously Admitted

It seems as if the only people who have never actually read all of Hillary Clinton’s emails are the American people. There is ample evidence that the private server was hacked by at least one foreign intelligence service and some content from the emails has wandered on to the internet. Today The New York Post posted a story that indicates that the scandal went higher than was previously claimed.

The article reports:

President Obama used an undisclosed pseudonym to communicate with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her private email server – shocking her top aide Huma Abedin when she learned of it.

“How is that not classified?” Abedin “exclaimed” to investigators when shown a copy of the 2012 exchange between Clinton and Obama, according to a trove of 189-pages of FBI documents dumped Friday night into Clinton’s use of the private server.

After learning that the president used email with a pseudonym — apparently to try to protect his identity — Abedin asked her interrogators if she could keep a copy of the email.

A few thoughts on this. If President Obama was emailing Hillary on her private server, he knew she had a private server. That contradicts what he has publicly stated. Why was he using another name? Was classified material discussed?

It is now obvious that the email scandal includes the White House. That may explain why the Justice Department and the FBI decided not to press charges. It really is time to clean house in Washington. Hopefully Americans will remember that in November.

The British Papers Report What The American Media Chooses To Ignore

There is an old adage, “You are known by the company you keep.” Generally speaking, the idea is that if you hang around with someone with questionable ideas, you probably share some of those ideas. Well, the American media seems to have overlooked this concept in their reporting on Hillary Clinton. We’ve all seen a list of the close friends of the Clintons who have either served time in jail, been indicted, and met with unfortunate accidents. That list speaks for itself, but there is some disturbing information about a close associate of Hillary Clinton posted in the U.K. Mail  today. As far as I know, the only American news outlet that is carrying this story is The New York Post.

Evidently Huma Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs until as late as 2008.  The U.K. Mail describes the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs as “a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.” Ms. Abedin is listed on the masthead of the publication beginning in 2002. Her mother was the editor.

The magazine espoused ideas that I don’t believe American women would appreciate:

Shortly after Clinton gave her seminal ‘women’s rights are human rights,’ speech in Beijing in 1995, the journal published a series of articles hitting back at the speech.

A 1996 piece titled ‘Women’s rights are Islamic rights’, that appeared to claim that women who wore revealing clothes were inviting rape.

The author wrote that revealing clothes ‘directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.’

It also states that single or working moms and gay couples with children should not be classed as a family.

‘A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,’ the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League – which funds the journal.

At best, it seems as if Ms. Abedin might not be in tune with Mrs. Clinton’s ideas on women’s rights. The magazine also supports female genital mutilation, which unfortunately is now happening in Muslim communities in America despite the fact that it is illegal.

A few years ago Michele Bachmann attempted to get the story of Huma Abedin’s background out, but was shouted down by people who either do not understand or choose to ignore the concept of civilization jihad. Government Exhibit 003-0085 3:04-CR-240-G in U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, et al. explains the tactics being used by the Muslim Brotherhood in America to undermine our Constitution. The placement of Huma Abedin in a high position with a Presidential candidate is an example of civilization jihad.

This is the story behind the document:

August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness war-rant issued in Chicago, Illinois, in connection with fundraising for Hamas.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office subsequently executed a search warrant on Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found. The contents of the sub-basement proved to be the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

Among the 80 banker-boxes worth of documents discovered there were papers that confirmed what investigators and counterterrorism experts had long suspected and contended about the myriad Muslim-American groups in the United States: nearly all of them are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Therefore, in accordance with the supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah, such groups are hostile to this country, its Constitution and freedoms. The documents make clear the groups’ sole objectives are to implement Islamic law in America in furtherance of re-establishing the global caliphate.

One of the most important of these documents made public to date was entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial. It amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” The Explanatory Memorandum was written in 1991 by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohamed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was meant for internal review by the Brothers’ leadership in Egypt. It was certainly not intended for public consumption, particularly in the targeted society: the United States.

Huma Abedin has a family connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical agenda associated with Sharia Law. This should not be ignored. She has been Hillary Clinton’s closest aide for a number of years. The fact that the American media has downplayed this connection and that Hillary Clinton is running for President is frightening. Say what you will about Donald Trump, there is no one in his group of advisors with connections to a group that wants to destroy the American republic. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for your children and grandchildren to grow up in an America that you won’t recognize.

You Really Can’t Hide The Truth Forever

The New York Post reported Saturday that thanks to a judge in Washington, D.C., the story of Justice Department obstruction in the investigation of Fast and Furious is finally coming out.

The article reports:

A federal judge has forced the release of more than 20,000 pages of emails and memos previously locked up under President Obama’s phony executive-privilege claim. A preliminary review shows top Obama officials deliberately obstructing congressional probes into the border gun-running operation.

Fast and Furious was a Justice Department program that allowed assault weapons — including .50-caliber rifles powerful enough to take down a helicopter — to be sold to Mexican drug cartels allegedly as a way to track them. But internal documents later revealed the real goal was to gin up a crisis requiring a crackdown on guns in America. Fast and Furious was merely a pretext for imposing stricter gun laws.

Only, the scheme backfired when Justice agents lost track of the nearly 2,000 guns sold through the program and they started turning up at murder scenes on both sides of the border — including one that claimed the life of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

While then-Attorney General Eric Holder was focused on politics, people were dying. At least 20 other deaths or violent crimes have been linked to Fast and Furious-trafficked guns.

The article further explains:

The degree of obstruction was “more than previously understood,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz said in a recent memo to other members of his panel.

“The documents reveal how senior Justice Department officials — including Attorney General Holder — intensely followed and managed an effort to carefully limit and obstruct the information produced to Congress,” he asserted.

They also indict Holder deputy Lanny Breuer, an old Clinton hand, who had to step down in 2013 after falsely denying authorizing Fast and Furious.

Their efforts to impede investigations included:

  • Devising strategies to redact or otherwise withhold relevant information;
  • Manipulating media coverage to control fallout;
  • Scapegoating the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for the scandal.

For instance, a June 2011 e-mail discusses withholding ATF lab reports from Congress, and a July 2011 e-mail details senior Justice officials agreeing to “stay away from a representation that we’ll fully cooperate.”

The best quote in the article:

Though Obama prides himself on openness, transparency and accountability, the behavior of his administration belies such lofty principles. “Transparency should not require years of litigation and a court order,” Chaffetz pointed out.

Please follow the link and read the entire article. There are a number of people currently in the Obama Administration who, based on their emails, should be in jail for obstructing justice. Unfortunately, whether or not that happens will depend on who the next President is.

A Few Notes On The Nomination Of A Supreme Court Justice

This is the quote from Joe Biden on confirming Supreme Court Justices during a campaign season (taken from The New York Post):

“Once the political season is underway,” Biden said, “action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee . . . Otherwise . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution,” stuck in “a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the president.”

Yesterday Heritage Action released the following statement from chief executive officer Michael A. Needham:

“Nothing has changed. Senate Republicans deserve credit for using their ‘Advice and Consent’ authority to ensure the American people’s voices are not ignored as they are in the process of selecting their next president.  The next president —  Republican or Democrat — should be in the position to fill the Court’s vacancy with the advise and consent of the Senate.

“President Obama and Senate Democrats will no doubt call Judge Garland a ‘mainstream Federal judge’ and promise his ‘approach to deciding cases on the law and the Constitution, not politics or an ideological agenda.’ Of course, they said those exact words when liberal Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated. We are one liberal Justice away from seeing gun rights restricted and partial birth abortion being considered a constitutional right. The Republican majority exists to block these type of nominees.”

Yesterday Townhall.com reported the following:

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law-abiding citizens.

This is something to think about. I am not a gun person. I didn’t grow up in a hunting family, and until I moved to North Carolina I had never been around guns. That has changed since I have been here, and I will be taking a gun safety course in the near future. I believe it is necessary to have a population that has the freedom to bear arms. I believe that is the intent of the Second Amendment. I am also convinced that the Second Amendment will protect us from government takeovers from both internal and external sources. It is important to the preservation of our freedom and it protects the other Amendments.

I realize that if Hillary Clinton becomes President, a more liberal judge will be nominated, and we will probably lose our Second Amendment privileges. However, I still believe the nomination process should be put on hold until after the election.

Truth Is Always The First Casualty Of An Election Campaign

President Obama is not running for office this year. However, he has not hesitated to tell anyone who will listen what a great President he has been. Some of us aren’t convinced.

On Friday, The New York Post posted an article about President Obama’s recent claims about the economy.

The article states:

‘Anybody who says we are not absolutely better off today than we were just seven years ago, they’re not leveling with you. They’re not telling the truth,” Obama said last week. “By almost every economic measure, we are significantly better off.”

The article then goes on to report some of the actual statistics:

  • The labor force participation rate over that period has slid from 65.7 percent to 62.9 (the lowest reading since March 1978) — down 4.3 percent.
  •  On Obama’s watch, the percentage of Americans below the poverty line has grown, according to the most recent Census data, from 14.3 percent to 14.8 percent in 2014 — up 3.5 percent.
  •  Real median household income across that interval sank from $54,925 to $53,657 — down 2.3 percent.
  • Food Stamp participants soared in that time frame from 32,889,000 to 45,874,000 — up 39.5 percent.
  •  Meanwhile, from Obama’s arrival through the fourth quarter of 2015, the percentage of Americans who own homes sagged from 67.3 percent to 63.8 — down 5.2 percent.

I don’t think we can afford another four years of this sort of economic success.

When The Government Acts Like The Mob

The New York Post posted an article today about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The article reports:

Newly uncovered internal memos reveal the Obama administration knowingly exaggerated charges of racial discrimination in probes of Ally Bank and other defendants in the $900 billion car-lending business as part of a “racial justice” campaign that’s looking more like a massive government extortion and shakedown operation.

So far, Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has reached more than $220 million in settlements with several auto lenders since the agency launched its anti-discrimination crusade against the industry in 2013. Several other banks are under active investigation.

That’s despite the fact that the CFPB had no actual complaints of racial discrimination — it was all just based on half-baked statistics.

A confidential 23-page internal report detailing CFPB’s strategy for going after lenders shows why these companies are forking over millions of dollars in restitution and fines to the government despite denying any wrongdoing.

Ally Bank was willing to settle on paying $98 million rather than the $204 million the government had initially requested. Why were they willing to pay at all? The FDIC was looking at charges of ‘red lining’ at the time the suit was brought. Ally Bank needed to pass its Community Reinvestment Act exam. If the suit had not been settled, it probably would not have passed the exam.

This bears a striking resemblance to a mob shakedown. Someone would come into a business and say, “You have a nice place here, it would be a shame if something bad happened to it.” Now the government is doing that. It gets worse.

The article concludes:

In fact, CFPB still has not been able to definitively ID the race of any borrower it claims Ally victimized — which is why it has taken more than two years to send remuneration checks to alleged victims. Desperate to find them, the bureau recently had to mail 420,000 letters to Ally borrowers to coax at least 235,000 into taking the money, and to allow Cordray (CFPB chief Richard Cordray) to save face.

Checks started going out this month to the fictitious victims — just in time for the election. So what if some recipients are white? They will all no doubt thank Democrats for the sudden, unexpected windfall of up to $520 in the mail.

When the government becomes a thug, it is time to shrink and replace the government. Who exactly was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau set up to protect?

It Just Gets Messier

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI). which was spun off from the Clinton Foundation in 2010, is not going to refile its tax returns. The CHAI failed to comply with a conflict-of-interest pledge after promising to do so.

The article reports:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which was spun off from the foundation in 2010, did not solicit a State Department ethics review of multiple contributions from foreign governments as mandated by a conflict-of-interest pledge established before Hillary Clinton assumed the role of secretary of state in 2009. A CHAI representative told Reuters in April that the organization was planning to refile its 2012 and 2013 tax returns.

However, Politico reported Monday that the same representative insists that the organization never promised to refile the forms and will not do so.

“Contrary to what was reported, CHAI has consistently stated that they would conduct a review process to determine whether the transposition errors required a refiling,”  CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley stated. “After conducting the review, the transpositional errors made had no material impact and we do not believe a refiling is required.”

The Clinton Foundation itself has had some problems with accountability. In April of this year, The New York Post reported the following:

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

Democratic voters really need to reconsider whether or not they want to put these people back in the White House. They are obviously ethically challenged.

Political Correctness Meets Mental Illness

Political correctness has become acceptable in recent years. Television shows that we watched as children or young adults would not be allowed on the air today. I loved the show “WKRP,” but I doubt that show would be allowed on the air today because of the stereotypes of women, blacks, disc jockeys, newscasters, etc. However, it was a very entertaining show because of the way the characters were drawn. It was not meant to offend any one group of people–it simply laughed at who we all are.

So what happens when a person who is mentally ill decides to take political correctness to its limit?

The New York Post posted a story today about the recent killing of a newswoman and a news cameraman in Virginia. The story is a clear illustration of political correctness run amok. The story also illustrates what happens when a disturbed person decides to be offended by something that is not meant to be offensive or that most of us would not consider offensive.

The article reports:

The words are a part of everyday conversation — “swinging” by an address and going out in the “field.”

But in the twisted mind of Virginia gunman Vester Lee Flanagan II, they were pure racism — and saying them became a death sentence for Alison Parker.

The 24-year-old white reporter, who was murdered on live TV along with her cameraman, used the phrases as an intern at ­WDBJ TV in Roanoke in 2012, according to an internal complaint filed by Flanagan, who was black.

“One was something about ‘swinging’ by some place; the other was out in the ‘field,’ ” said the Jan. 21 report by assistant news director Greg Baldwin, which refers to Parker as Alison Bailey (her middle name).

The article goes on to explain that Flanagan interpreted out in the ‘field’ as a reference to cotton fields. In his twisted mind, that was a racist statement.

The article further reports:

“This guy was a nightmare,” Fair (Trevor Fair, a 33-year-old cameraman at WDBJ for six years) said. “Management’s worst nightmare.”

Flanagan assumed everything was a jab at his race, even when a manager brought in watermelon for all employees.

“Of course, he thought that was racist. He was like, ‘You’re doing that because of me.’ No, the general manager brought in watermelon for the entire news team. He’s like, ‘Nope, this is out for me. You guys are calling me out because I’m black.’ ”

Flanagan even declared that ­7-Eleven was racist because it sold watermelon-flavored Slurpees.

“It’s not a coincidence, they’re racist,” he allegedly told Fair. 

How do you deal with a person who is constantly offended by the world around him? Do you refer him for mental testing? Do you put him on some sort of watch list? It seems to me that Flanagan was going to explode at some time. It is a shame that explosion could not have been prevented (without infringing on his civil rights).

This Is What Happens When An Investigation Takes Two Years To Get To The Point

Yesterday The New York Post reported that Hillary Clinton has handed over her server to the Justice Department. Unfortunately, the server is blank.

The article reports:

Clinton said she turned over all her official e-mails to the State Department in December and then wiped clean her server.

Clinton deleted some 30,000 personal e-mails but backed up work ones on thumb drives that were also turned over to federal authorities.

In compliance with a federal court order, lawyers for two top Clinton aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, assured a judge Wednesday the aides won’t delete any of their official e-mails.

The Clinton campaign said Thursday there is nothing on her server left to retrieve. “As David Kendall [Clinton’s lawyer] said in March, we do not believe any e-mails from her time as secretary exist on the server,” the campaign said in a statement.

Platte River says it began work for Clinton in June 2013, after she left office, to upgrade, secure and manage her e-mail server.

The company retrieved the server from her New York home and housed it at a data center in New Jersey, said company spokesman Andy Boian.

My advice on this matter is very simple–if you are an ordinary citizen, don’t try this at home!

Is Death An Excuse For Missing Work?

Is death an excuse for missing work? I don’t mean a death in the family–I mean your own death. Well, not in New York City. The New York Post reported that that Medicaid-eligibility specialist Geoffrey Toliver was fired after not showing up for his hearing where he was to be accused of going AWOL because he had not shown up for his job since November 2013. Toliver died at age 65 on Dec. 8, 2014.

 

The article reports:

“How do you fire a man who is already dead? He deserves better. The agency itself should have known,” said Ted Willbright, who added that he considered Toliver as a brother.

“Some people he worked with were very supportive, so how did HRA the organization not know? He’s dead, and they’re saying he abandoned his job. He didn’t abandon his job, his job abandoned him. He was a good man. Truly, truly a good man.”

HRA officials said they sought to remove Toliver from his $38,000-a-year job after they couldn’t reach him for well over a year.

They marked the start of his absence as Nov. 12, 2013, and said calls and certified letters mailed to his home were never answered.

“We did everything we could to contact him and his family,” said HRA spokesman David Neustadt. “This employee was not paid when he wasn’t working, but we left his job open in case he recovered.”

He said that now that the agency knows of his “unfortunate death,” it would take no further action.

What would be the appropriate further action to take against a dead man?

Losing Your Rights In Your Own Home

Fox News posted an article in late June (I missed it. Sorry) about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio‘s plan to end smoking in apartments. That’s right, if you are renting an apartment in New York City, you would not be allowed to smoke in your apartment.

The article reports:

The mayor’s administration is planning to pay four health-advocacy groups $9,000 apiece to press landlords and developers to prohibit lighting up in their apartment complexes so neighboring tenants don’t breathe in secondhand smoke, according to the New York Post. The city has already banned smoking in bars and restaurants, workplaces, sports venues and parks, but has not moved against smokers who practice their habit in the privacy of their own homes.

City health officials emphasized the initiative is voluntary — at least for now.

“Everyone benefits from smoke-free housing. Residents enjoy breathing cleaner, healthier air in their homes . . . while owners see reductions in property damage and turnover costs,” a Health Department spokesman said.

Dozens of buildings containing hundreds of apartments have already kicked the habit, according to the Health Department. The de Blasio administration is actually accelerating an initiative started at the tail end of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s tenure.

I need to make a few things clear here. I am a non-smoker–I never smoked. I grew up in a blue haze in a house with two heavy smokers (both of whom died as a result of smoking-related illnesses). I really hate the smell of cigarettes and love the fact that I no longer have to smell cigarette smoke in restaurants. However, smokers have rights, too. If someone wants to smoke in the privacy of their own apartment, it bothers me that a law could be passed that would make that a crime. I thought Republicans were the people always being accused of wanting to make laws about what people did behind closed doors.

I agree with the idea that if a landlord wants to make his apartments smoke-free, he should be allowed to do so. Hotels have smoke-free rooms. The rooms stay cleaner, and it cuts down on the fire hazard of someone falling asleep while smoking. However, this should be the choice of the individual landlord–not the city government.

Meanwhile, many states are moving to legalize marijuana as they limit the rights of tobacco smokers. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Looking Past The Obvious

On Monday, the New York Post posted an article about the push to move the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Contrary to what is true in most case, it isn’t about the money.

The article reports:

A Times editorial last week cheered Los Angeles’ enactment of a $15-an-hour minimum wage — but noted that restaurants, particularly fast-food joints, don’t like it. Said The Times: “The restaurant industry . . . will not go down without a fight.”

We didn’t think that bringing down an entire industry was what the campaign for a $15 minimum was supposed to be about. Oops.

Back in March, we noted that a similar hike in Seattle’s minimum wage was leading to a spate of local restaurant closings, given that labor costs account for 36 percent of the average restaurant’s earnings.

The left has been on a war against McDonald’s for years. I will admit that I do not routinely eat at McDonald’s (although I love their mango smoothies), but that is my choice–just because I don’t eat there doesn’t mean that I have the right to prevent anyone else from eating there.

The article cites one example of the impact of the minimum wage hike:

Case in point: Z Pizza, which has to shut down — putting all 11 employees out of work — because its owner can’t afford the higher labor costs. Ritu Shah Burnham says she tried layoffs, cutting hours, price hikes and not paying herself — to no avail.

And while small businesses have six years to phase in the wage hikes, she has only two, since she’s a franchise of a large chain.

The Times dismissed such concerns, saying minimum-wage hikes can be offset by higher prices and by “paying executives and shareholders less.”

That didn’t work for Burnham, who has no shareholders and is no executive — just a victimized small-business owner whose workers’ hourly wage is about to be cut to zero, thanks to their “advocates.”

It is time to send all of the big government types home. The only way to turn this around is to elect people at all levels of government who believe in freedom from excessive government regulation. The big government types are killing small business, and thus, killing the economy.

Why Many Americans Are Losing Faith In Their Government

Yesterday The New York Post posted a story illustrating one way that some of our politicians exploit their offices. I suspect that what went on here may actually be legal, but that does not necessarily make it right.

The story reports:

The US Postal Service plans to sell 56 buildings — so it can lease space more expensively — and the real estate company of the California senator’s husband (Sen. Dianne Feinstein), Richard Blum, is set to pocket about $1 billion in commissions.

Blum’s company, CBRE, was selected in March 2011 as the sole real estate agent on sales expected to fetch $19 billion. Most voters didn’t notice that Blum is a member of CBRE’s board and served as chairman from 2001 to 2014.

This feat of federal spousal support was ignored by the media after Feinstein’s office said the senator, whose wealth is pegged at $70 million, had nothing to do with the USPS decisions.

It would be nice if, just for the sake of appearances, Mr. Blum chose not to participate in the deal.

An Unnecessary Tragedy

Today’s New York Post is reporting that two policemen have been killed in the Brooklyn while they sat in their police car. Unfortunately, this is the result of much of the media’s and some of our local and national leaders’ ‘war on the police’ that has been going on for the last few months.

May the policemen rest in peace and their families be comforted.

The article reports the response of some of the New York City Police:

The two officers were pronounced dead at Woodhull Hospital, where their colleagues and family members huddled tearfully.

City Council President Melissa Mark-Viverito and Mayor Bill de Blasio were less than welcome guests at the poignant gathering.

“We’re all in this together,” the mayor told grieving cops, according to a cop who was there.

“No we’re not,” one officer said tersely in response.

Just last week cops began signing a “Don’t Insult My Sacrifice” waiver, distributed by the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, that warned the mayor and speaker to stay away from funerals of cops killed in the line of duty.

Lieutenants Benevolent Association President Lou Turco, like many cops, likened the murders to the 1988 assassination of Police Officer Eddie Byrne.

The 22-year-old rookie cop was alone in a squad car in Jamaica, Queens, guarding the home of a witness in a drug case, when he was shot in the head five times. The hit was ordered by jailed drug kingpin “Pappy” Mason, in retaliation for his arrest.

“I don’t even know how to respond to this,” Turco said. “Twenty-eight years on and I don’t know what to say.”

Another cop, who is black, said he fears that “this is just the beginning.

“There are people out there who will want to be copycats. The tension out there is the worst I’ve ever seen it.”

The lack of support shown to the New York City Police recently has not helped the safety of policemen. It is time for those who seek to divide America along racial lines and those who seek to blame the police for those divides to be quiet. Lack of respect for policemen endangers all of us. It will make America less safe and create chaos in our cities.

 

One Perspective On The Mid-term Election

Michael Goodwin at the New York Post posted an article with an interesting perspective on the mid-term elections. Mr. Goodwin noted that even as a daily misstep is coming from the Obama Administration, President Obama seems to be saying that he is blameless in whatever disaster is unfolding.

The article notes:

We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world, is being exposed as a historic calamity. It is fueling domestic fear and global disorder and may well lead to a world war.

If there is a smidgen of a silver lining, it is that the unraveling, complete with Obama’s shameless attempts to duck responsibility, is playing out on the eve of the midterm elections. Fortunately, voters seem ready to respond by giving Republicans control of both houses of congress.

…He was aided and abetted by every Democrat in Congress. They marched in lockstep with his cockamamie policies, from ObamaCare to open borders. They protected corrupt leaders in numerous federal agencies, from the IRS to the Genera Services Administration. They stymied efforts to find the truth about Benghazi and the Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle.

They ceded their constitutional obligations and allowed Obama to crash the system of checks and balances. The vast majority stood silent while he gutted the military and abandoned our allies, including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and courted Iran, the most menacing nation on earth.

With painfully few exceptions, Democrats put their loyalty to him above their duty to America.

And now they must be punished. All of them.

Mr. Goodwin notes that he is a registered Democrat. However, he suggests that what is happening in the country at this moment is a national emergency and the only solution is to vote Republican for every federal office. I understand where he is coming from–I used to be a Democrat.