Monthly Archives: May 2016

Effectively Using The Power Of The Purse

Posted on by

Theoretically, the House of Representatives can limit executive power by using its control of the purse strings. According to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot spend money unless that spending is authorized by the House of Representatives. We haven’t seen the House of Representatives use that power as much as I would have liked under the Obama Administration, but the power is there. In fact, there was one recent incident where the House of Representatives successfully used that power.

In October I posted a story about the Obama Administration attempting to spend money that was not allocated by Congress. At issue were payments to insurance companies to alleviate their losses under Obama.

As reported by the Daily Signal in October:

In January, Sessions’ committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee had identified that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacked an appropriation for bailing out insurance companies through the risk corridors. They asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the matter. That September, the GAO issued its legal opinion: the administration would need an appropriation from Congress to make outgoing payments.

Today The Los Angeles Times reported:

A federal judge ruled for House Republicans on Thursday in their suit against President Obama and declared his administration is unconstitutionally spending money to reimburse health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

The judge’s ruling, though a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

The ruling upholds the Constitution, why would it be overturned on appeal?

The article at The Los Angeles Times reports:

The Constitution says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” said Judge Rosemary Collyer, yet the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing coverage for low-income Americans.

“Paying out Sec. 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” she wrote. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”

Stay tuned to see if the Constitution will be upheld.

Fighting Back

Posted on by

The Alliance Defending Freedom posted an article on its website about actions it will be taking regarding North Carolina‘s bathroom bill.

The article reports:

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing students and parents at North Carolina public schools and universities filed suit Tuesday against the U.S. departments of Justice and Education for making federal student aid and educational funding dependent on students sharing restrooms and locker rooms with the opposite sex. The suit is similar to one ADF filed against the two agencies on behalf of parents and students in Illinois last week.

The DOJ disregarded student privacy and safety when it issued letters threatening the suspension of federal funding for North Carolina’s schools and university system, as well as federal financial aid for North Carolina’s university students, unless the state government repudiated the law known as House Bill 2. That law ensures that government facilities and public schools protect personal privacy by maintaining sex-specific restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. The DOJ then filed suit against the state on Monday, the same day that the governor and the General Assembly each sued the agency over its illegitimate demands.

“The administration shouldn’t condition the ability of women to receive an education on their willingness to shower with members of the opposite sex,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “On behalf of North Carolina students and families—and by extension all students and families across the nation affected by the DOJ’s and DOE’s overreach—we have filed suit to stop both agencies from bullying schools and universities. The agencies must stop using falsehoods about what federal law requires to threaten student access to educational opportunities and financial assistance.”

Do you want boys allowed in your high school or college daughter’s locker room?

Before you sign on to support the idea of men in women’s locker rooms, please watch the following video posted on YouTube by the Alliance Defending Freedom:

If the ‘right of privacy‘ is somehow enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, why are we taking that right away from the women of America?

The Negative Impact Of Universal Preschool

Posted on by

As the tax burden on the American Family has increased and the value of our currency has decreased, many families now have two parents who work outside the home. One result of this is a growing daycare industry that takes care of children from the time they are three or four months old. What impact does this have on the children and what impact does this have on our society?

The Heritage Foundation posted the results of research on the impact of universal preschool on its website today. We might want to rethink what we are doing.

Some highlights from the article:

Evidence continues to mount that government-funded preschool fails to fulfill the promises of its proponents. New studies of large-scale preschool programs in Quebec and Tennessee show that vastly expanding access to free or subsidized preschool may worsen behavioral and emotional outcomes. Even proponents of universal preschool admit that it does nothing to improve future academic performance.

As proponents of government preschool programs continue to appeal to findings from 50 years ago that have never been replicated, current, large-scale, rigorous evaluations of major programs at the federal level, in the states, and internationally make a strong case against such initiatives and deserve serious consideration from policymakers wont to further expand government intervention in the care of the youngest Americans.

…The Head Start Impact Study. In late 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released the Head Start Impact Study, a scientifically rigorous evaluation that tracked 5,000 three-year-old and four-year-old children through the end of third grade. The study found little to no impact on the parenting practices or the cognitive, social-emotional, and health outcomes of participants. Notably, on a few measures, access to Head Start had harmful effects on participating children.[7] For both the three-year-old and four-year-old cohorts, access to Head Start had no statistically measurable effects on any measure of cognitive ability, including reading, language, and math.[8] In other words, by the time they finished third grade, there was no difference between those children who attended Head Start and the control group of their peers who did not.

Vanderbilt Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K Study. In 2015, a team of researchers from Vanderbilt University released an evaluation of Tennessee’s Voluntary Pre-K (VPK) Program, a state-subsidized preschool program open to low-income children in the state. Some 18,000 children participate in the program, which was introduced in 1996. Proponents have long claimed Tennessee’s VPK program is a model state-based preschool program, with standards aligned to the Obama Administration’s Preschool for All initiative.[9] Teachers must be licensed, the child-adult ratio is limited to 10:1, and a structured “age-appropriate” curriculum must be used in classrooms. The program is available first to children from low-income Tennessee families, and then, space permitting, to children with special needs and children with limited English proficiency, among other children deemed “at-risk.” An earlier evaluation found that gains made by participating four-year-olds had faded by kindergarten. In a follow-up evaluation released in September 2015, Mark Lipsey, Dale Farrar, and Kerry Hofer reported that there were no sustained benefits for the same children through the end of third grade.[10]

These studies showed no benefit. Some studies show that preschool can be harmful. The article reports:

The province of Quebec introduced universal low-cost day care for children through age four beginning in 1997. The program has had a large impact: privately funded child care arrangements have almost disappeared, and Quebec has the highest rate of subsidized child care in Canada, at 58 percent in 2011.[13] The program caused a 14.5 percent increase in the share of mothers of young children working outside the home.[14] The Quebec experience offers more guidance for the potential introduction of universal child care than small, targeted programs, because it implicitly includes indirect effects on non-participants and any general equilibrium effects due to the drastic shift in the way child care was funded and conducted.

Regrettably, new research has found that children who became eligible for the program in Quebec were more anxious as children and have committed more crimes as teenagers. The availability of day care clearly worsened children’s non-cognitive “soft” skills.

Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan found that children exposed to the program were 4.6 percent more likely to be convicted of a crime and 17 percent more likely to commit a drug crime. Their health and life satisfaction were worse.

I realize that staying at home is not an option for every mother. However, the decision to have someone else with your young child for most of their waking hours does have consequences. Mothers are one of America’s most important assets.

I’m Grateful For The Outcome, The Court Case Makes Me Crazy

Posted on by

WCVB in Boston reported yesterday that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Friday that saying the pledge of allegiance every day in public school, including the words “under God,” does not violate the Massachusetts Constitution or discriminate against atheists.

In 2010 an atheist family in Acton, Massachusetts, sued, claiming that the daily recitation of the pledge in classrooms violated their three children’s constitutional rights. The family, who are not identified in the suit, said the ruling insinuates that nonbelievers are less patriotic.

The article reports:

In its ruling the court took pains to make clear that reciting the pledge is voluntary, ” No Massachusetts school student is required by law to recite the pledge or to participate in the ceremony of which the pledge is a part. Recitation of the pledge is entirely optional.”

The decision only applies to Massachusetts because the pledge’s language is defined by federal law.

Good grief.

Some Wisdom From John Bolton

Posted on by

I will continue to repeat that Donald Trump was not my first choice for President. However, he will become my first choice if he wins the Republican nomination (which I believe he will). I am not unique in the fact that I am planning to cast my vote in November against Hillary Clinton (four more years of President Obama) regardless of who the Republican nominee is (there are a few exceptions to that based on any shenanigans the establishment Republicans may pull at the convention). Evidently I am not the only person feeling that way.

A website called ETFNews posted an article yesterday quoting Ambassador John Bolton on the presidential race.

The article reports:

“I believe this is a binary choice,” Bolton said. “The next president will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, unless Hillary gets indicted. Talk about a third-party candidate, I think, is badly misplaced. The idea of not voting at all is no better because, functionally, that’s a vote for Hillary. And it may have a really harmful effect on Senate and House races where Republicans are going to be fighting hard to maintain control.”

Bolton said the issue is of utmost importance because Hillary would give us at least another four years of Obama’s defeatist foreign policy.

“Hillary is extremely happy with the Obama foreign policy. It’s almost an urban legend now that somehow she would be tougher, more hawkish (than Obama). I really don’t see that,” Bolton said.

Ambassador Bolton is a man who has served at the highest levels of government and knows the people involved. All of us need to listen to him.

The article further reports:

Bolton, President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, had held out on endorsing anyone during the nomination fight, while saying he would support the Republican nominee. Reports say that he briefly considered running himself, although from his remarks he’s clearly given up that ghost.

He still has reservations about Trump, but says that they’re nowhere near as huge as the doubts he has about Hillary and her continuation of Obama’s foreign policy mistakes.

“It’s also important to demonstrate that Trump can can fulfill the most important job of the presidency, which is keeping the country safe,” Bolton said.

“Obviously, the economy’s important. There’s a lot of important issues, but if the country’s not safe, everything else is secondary.”

I agree. Not happily, but I agree.

Does This Matter To You?

Posted on by

On Sunday, The New York Times posted an interview with President Obama’s foreign policy guru Ben Rhodes. Ben Rhodes was an aspiring novelist who somehow became a major player in President Obama’s foreign policy. There are a few very telling remarks in the interview.

This is The New York Times description of Ben Rhodes’ job:

The job he was hired to do, namely to help the president of the United States communicate with the public, was changing in equally significant ways, thanks to the impact of digital technologies that people in Washington were just beginning to wrap their minds around. It is hard for many to absorb the true magnitude of the change in the news business — 40 percent of newspaper-industry professionals have lost their jobs over the past decade — in part because readers can absorb all the news they want from social-media platforms like Facebook, which are valued in the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars and pay nothing for the “content” they provide to their readers. You have to have skin in the game — to be in the news business, or depend in a life-or-death way on its products — to understand the radical and qualitative ways in which words that appear in familiar typefaces have changed. Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Therefore, it is very easy to lie to reporters. Great. Thanks for doing you job of informing American voters–instead you have chosen to mislead them.

The New York Daily News posted a story on Saturday about the role that Ben Rhodes played in the Iran nuclear deal.

The New York Daily News reports:

Looking far down the road to regional domination, Iran’s radical Islamist leaders made a calculated decision to present a less menacing face to the world.

No longer, for example, would the country’s secular leadership vow the annihilation of Israel and rail against the Great Satan United States.

Worldly President Hassan Rouhani, who earned a Ph.D. in Scotland, took office in 2013, declaring an intention to engage with the West. Foreign minister Mohammad Zarif, educated at American universities, cultivated a close relationship with Secretary of State John Kerry.

Here, finally, were moderates with whom the U.S. could negotiate as President Obama sought to normalize relations with a sworn enemy.

So the Iranian propaganda went as the mullahs hoped for relief from economic sanctions via a nuclear deal with the U.S. and Western powers.

Why would anyone believe such obvious nonsense? One reason — in fact the key reason — is that Obama joined Iran in knowingly peddling the same false propaganda to America, according to an extraordinarily revealing New York Times profile of the President’s deputy national security adviser, Benjamin Rhodes.

“The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal,” the profile states, providing evidence aplenty.

“Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency,” the profile discloses, quoting Rhodes as saying, “It’s the center of the arc” of an Obama strategy of remaking U.S. relations in the Mideast.

We have exchanged our alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East that allows freedom of religion, to an alliance with Iran, a country that has vowed to destroy Israel and America. This has been done with the help of Ben Rhodes (and President Obama), who blatantly lied to the American people about pretty much everything involved in the nuclear deal with Iran.

On Monday, The Federalist posted an article about Ben Rhodes and the Iran nuclear deal. The article included a chart based on a Gallop Poll of American opinion of Iran.

Here is the chart:

IranOpinionWe may have the treaty, but I am not sure the American people are on board.

The New York Times further reports:

As Malley and representatives of the State Department, including Wendy Sherman and Secretary of State John Kerry, engaged in formal negotiations with the Iranians, to ratify details of a framework that had already been agreed upon, Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. “We drove them crazy,” he said of the deal’s opponents.

This sort of public manipulation is the reason the alternative media has grown. Many Americans are tired of being manipulated and are willing to do their own search for the truth. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has a way of criticizing any opposition to their ideas successfully by using personal attacks and name-calling.

I don’t know what impact this information about the Iran nuclear deal will have on the 2016 election. What I do know is that President Obama sold the national security of America because he wanted a treaty with Iran as part of his legacy. That is a disgrace.

As The Obama Administration Is Winding Down, Some Foreign Policy Experts Are Beginning To Speak Out

Posted on by

Ambassador Dennis Ross posted an article at Political analyzing the consequences of President Obama’s Middle Eastern foreign policy.

The article begins with comments on recent events in the Middle East:

The United States has significantly more military capability in the Middle East today than Russia—America has 35,000 troops and hundreds of aircraft; the Russians roughly 2,000 troops and, perhaps, 50 aircraft—and yet Middle Eastern leaders are making pilgrimages to Moscow to see Vladimir Putin these days, not rushing to Washington. Two weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to see the Russian president, his second trip to Russia since last fall, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia is planning a trip soon. Egypt’s president and other Middle Eastern leaders have also made the trek to see Putin.

Why is this happening, and why on my trips to the region am I hearing that Arabs and Israelis have pretty much given up on President Barack Obama? Because perceptions matter more than mere power: The Russians are seen as willing to use power to affect the balance of power in the region, and we are not.

‘Leading from behind’ is not leading, and it is not a foreign policy that is respected in other nations. We have not been a reliable ally to those nations that were previously considered allies. We have not stood for the principles that we have stood for in the past. The next President will have a lot of damage to our international reputation to repair.

The article goes on to explain that in order for America to be trusted once again in the Middle East, the countries in the region will have to be convinced of a few things:

…they will want to know that America’s word is good and there will be no more “red lines” declared but unfulfilled; that we see the same threats they do; and that U.S. leaders understand that power affects the landscape in the region and will not hesitate to reassert it.

The article has a few suggestions on how to achieve that goal:

⧫ Toughen our declaratory policy toward Iran about the consequences of cheating on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to include blunt, explicit language on employing force, not sanctions, should the Iranians violate their commitment not to pursue or acquire a nuclear weapon;

⧫ Launch contingency planning with GCC states and Israel—who themselves are now talking—to generate specific options for countering Iran’s growing use of Shiite militias to undermine regimes in the region. (A readiness to host quiet three-way discussions with Arab and Israeli military planners would signal we recognize the shared threat perceptions, the new strategic realities, and the potentially new means to counter both radical Shiite and Sunni threats.)

⧫ Be prepared to arm the Sunni tribes in Iraq if Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi continues to be blocked from doing so by the Iranians and the leading militias;

⧫ In Syria, make clear that if the Russians continue to back Assad and do not force him to accept the Vienna principles (a cease-fire, opening humanitarian corridors, negotiations and a political transition), they will leave us no choice but to work with our partners to develop safe havens with no-fly zones.

We have never really had a successful Middle East policy. The problem began after World War I when western powers carved out countries in the Middle East with no regard for ethnic and tribal rivalries. We will not have peace in the region until we begin to recognize the different factions and find ways to bring them together.

 

We Cannot Support The World Indefinitely

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about welfare payments that go to illegal immigrants.

The article includes the following chart:

IllegalWelfareI don’t want anyone to go hungry or be homeless, but why are we taking money away from Americans who have worked for it and giving it to people who are here illegally? It is time to reevaluate how we are spending tax money.

The article states:

The total cost is over $103 billion in welfare benefits to households headed by immigrants. A majority, 51 percent, of immigrant households receive some type of welfare compared to 30 percent of native households, said the analysis of Census data.

The article concludes:

— The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.

We need to take a serious look at our immigration policies. We also need to take a good look at efforts we are making to educate the people who are already here–legally or illegally. We can’t send everyone back home, but we can secure the border and make an effort to help those people here–legally and illegally, immigrant or natural citizen–get off of our welfare rolls. We can no longer afford to have an entire segment of our population depending on hard-working taxpayers for their support–it is time everyone finds a way to contribute to our economy–not just take from it.

Creating Chaos In Cleveland

Posted on by

Now that Donald Trump is the only candidate in the Republican Presidential Primary, the Republican establishment is working very hard to make sure he is not the candidate. They are not above turning the convention into a circus if necessary.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about the current antics of the establishment Republicans regarding the June convention.

The article reports:

A Republican National Committee member will propose an amendment to the GOP convention rules this summer that will allow any Republican candidate with at least one delegate to be “deemed” nominated on the first ballot.

“So, using Iowa as an example, every candidate receiving at least four percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses will earn one delegate, and thus be nominated for consideration at the Republican National Convention,” North Dakota National Committeeman Curly Haugland, a member of the RNC Rules Committee, told The Daily Caller Tuesday.

Haugland says that since the Iowa primary, eight names would be in the nomination on the first ballot. These are Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Rand Paul ,and Jeb Bush.

What this amendment does is get rid of that pesky Rule 40B. Rule 40B was enacted in 2012 to keep Ron Paul off of the ballot. Now it has come back to bite the Republican establishment.

This is the text of Rule 40B:

“Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.”

The current problem with Rule 40B is that Ted Cruz is the only candidate other than Trump that has taken eight states, and Ted Cruz is the other non-establishment candidate.

So what can we learn from this? First of all, the majority of people who voted in the Republican Primary elections voted for non-establishment candidates. It seems to me that if I were part of the Republican establishment I would begin to see that unless I do something quickly, my days in power are going to end soon. I would suggest that if the establishment wants to stay in power, they might try listening to the voters. If the Republican convention results in a candidate other than Donald Trump, the Republican Party will die. Even if there is not a third party, the Republican Party will die. Moving the goalposts in the middle of a football game is considered unfair by most Americans. Doing it in politics is not a good idea.

Purposely Ignoring The Obvious

Posted on by

On Friday, CNS News reported that Chicago Public Schools have announced that all students and teachers will have access to whichever locker rooms and other spaces that were formerly reserved for one sex. This means that any teenage boy who wants to undress in the girls‘ locker room is free to do so. It also means that girls only health classes dealing with feminine issues are a thing of the past in Chicago.

The article reports:

In a weak acknowledgement of the uproar this will cause, the Chicago Public Schools says students that are not gender confused “should” be allowed access to alternative facilities. So, for example, if there are fifty girls who object to a boy undressing in front of them, it is the fifty girls, not the boy, who must go change in “single stall restrooms” elsewhere. Of course, the odds are high that school officials on the lookout for any sign of “bullying” will take careful note of which students leave the locker rooms, presuming they are allowed to leave at all.

To add to the confusion, the definition of gender identity changes about every three months, so the rules we are supposed to live by are constantly moving. But the latest definition, according to the Chicago Public Schools, is that sex is merely “a label a person is assigned at birth” and that the reality lies in one’s internal “psychological knowledge” of their own gender “regardless of the[ir] biological sex.”

At what point does common sense make an appearance?

The article concludes:

And therein lies the biggest affront from these new policies. Not only must government employees play along with a gender confused child’s every subjective wish, so must every other student. In fact, the Chicago Public Schools specify that students must address a gender confused child by whatever pronoun they wish, be it “they, their, ze, he and she.” Failure to do so “will result in appropriate consequences for offending staff and students,” in other words, discipline up to and including expulsion from school.

But many people of good will and faith conviction will simply refuse to put aside their legitimate privacy, modesty, and safety concerns. Many children of good will resist being forced to say “she” when speaking of a boy they have known for years just as they would resist being forced to say “5” when asked “what does 2+2 equal?

The left for years claimed that all they wanted was for LGBT persons to be left alone but this was a lie. It is now clear that liberals and their enablers will not leave anyone alone and will use the full force of courts, lawsuits, and government to ensure any resistance to their new gender ideology “will result in appropriate consequences.”

I think I would continue my school day sweaty and smelly rather than take a chance and dress in the locker room under the new rules. What are we doing to our children?

I Have No Idea How This Will Be Resolved

Posted on by

I have previously reported on the meeting held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on April 30, where a bunch of sore losers illegally deposed Hasan Harnett, the duly elected head of the North Carolina Republican Party. If you missed the report, you can read it here. Chairman Harnett attended the North Carolina State Republican Convention in Raleigh this weekend. He has shown the character and courage to stand up to the illegal actions of the group that decided to unelect him last weekend.

Yesterday The Raleigh News & Observer reported that Hasan Harnett has stated that he is still the Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party. I agree with him, but I wonder what will happen next. I suspect a nasty lawsuit will follow Mr. Harnett’s declaration.

The article reports:

After months of infighting among party leaders, the Republican Party Executive Committee voted April 30 to remove Harnett and replace him with former U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes of Concord.

Hayes led Saturday’s convention from the stage, while Harnett sat with the delegation from Cabarrus County, where he lives. But in one of the first interviews he’s given since being ousted, Harnett said the removal vote wasn’t legitimate because it didn’t follow party rules.

“I’m still the chairman, duly elected,” he told reporters outside the convention hall. “Regardless of all the brouhaha and the shenanigans that are taking place, my job is to make sure that there is openness, fairness and transparency within the party.”

…Harnett said some of his supporters attended the convention, while others were discouraged by his removal and stayed home.

Hayes’ speech Saturday didn’t mention Harnett, but he said the party is improving. “We are regaining our mojo, our credibility, but more importantly, as a company, people are becoming more willing to invest with us,” he said, holding up a donation check. Harnett had been criticized for failing to raise money – something he disputes. “We need to bring all our forces to bear so we can get rid of Hillary.”

The Republican establishment in North Carolina has not behaved well.  As I have previously reported (here), this is about delegates to the Republican Convention in Cleveland in June. Donald Trump won the North Carolina primary election and is entitled to a certain percentage of the votes. The establishment is still looking for ways to take votes away from Donald Trump. As I have frequently stated, I am not a Trump supporter although I will vote for him rather than vote for Hillary. However, the choice of the voters who voted in the primary election needs to be respected, and somehow the establishment Republicans have forgotten that.

I believe that Hasan Harnett is the legitimate Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party. I suspect the courts will agree with that statement because of the party rules broken in ousting Hasan Harnett. I hope this gets resolved soon.

If We Needed Proof It Was Rigged…

Posted on by

The 2016 Democratic Party Convention will be held in Philadelphia in late July. Even if Bernie Sanders manages to win 45 states, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. It has to do with the superdelegates who I am sure have been wined, dined, and threatened by the Clinton family.

The Hill posted an article today that if you had any doubts will convince you that the outcome of the convention is pre-determined, regardless of how the Democratic voters voted.

The article reports:

“I think it’s gonna be a great convention, but of course the key to it is the Sanders people. Bernie’s gonna have his name placed in nomination; we’re gonna have a roll call; there’s gonna be a demonstration in support of Bernie; he’s gonna lose the roll call,” he said. “His supporters have to behave and not cause trouble. And I think they will, and I think Sen. Sanders will send them a strong message.”

This is the current delegate count (from Wikipedia):

DemocratDelegateCountNotice that without the superdelegates this is a close race. If you are a Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders, did your vote count?

 

Remember The Pledge?

Posted on by

At the beginning of the Republican party nomination process, there was a lot of focus on whether or not Donald Trump would support the nominee if he did not win in the primary election. Much was made of this until he finally signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee. Other candidates were asked to sign a similar pledge. Well, that was then; this is now. What has transpired is a shining example of the reason many Americans have chosen to ignore our political system. Two people who signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee have already broken that pledge–Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham. Has it occurred to either one of these men that their actions have been partially responsible for the rise of Donald Trump? As I have explained before, I am not a Trump supporter, although I will vote for him in November. Hillary Clinton represents four more years of President Obama. I know I can’t afford that. Donald Trump might do a little better. I am willing to take that chance.

Now that Donald Trump seems to have sewn up the Presidential nomination, it’s time to watch the spin by those members of the media trying to elect Hillary Clinton and to discredit Donald Trump.

Referring to Donald Trump signing a loyalty pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, on March 30, The Washington Post reported:

Trump never had any intention of staying true to that piece of paper he signed at the behest of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. At the time, the field was still large, no one had voted yet, and there were questions swirling about whether he was a “real” Republican. Trump signed the pledge — and made a giant event out of it — because it helped solve a problem for him. Period. Now, with the delegate lead and his front-runner status totally cemented, Trump feels no compunction in walking away from the pledge. None. (Worth noting: Neither Cruz nor John Kasich was willing to unequivocally state his support for the eventual GOP nominee, either.)

Trump does what is good for Trump. Always. When it made sense to be for Republican unity, Trump was for it. Now that he doesn’t need to be for it anymore, he isn’t. His logic is totally transparent.

So, if you are stunned at Trump going back on his loyalty pledge, you just haven’t been paying attention.

That’s something of a leap.

Be prepared for more shenanigans from establishment Republicans. They are very unhappy with their candidate. There are many Republican party regulars who would rather see Hillary Clinton win than Donald Trump. Why? A Hillary victory does not impact their current power and could destroy the non-establishment wing of the Republican party–a definite goal. (Donald Trump is not a conservative, so the conservatives will have no reason to give up–except that many of them voted for Donald Trump out of anger rather than any principles.) A win by Donald Trump would negatively impact the current power structure of the Republican party–it might even force them to actually listen to the voters.

 

 

Who Is Making Our Laws?

Posted on by

We have reached the point in our representative republic where the people making the laws are not the people the voters elect and not the people the voters can hold accountable. A very large percentage of our laws are in the form of regulations that come from un-elected bureaucrats who cannot be held accountable by the voters. Yesterday the Conservative Tribune posted an article about the cost of these regulations.

The article includes the following graphs:

Hidden Government TaxHiddenGovernmentTax2The article reports:

Most troubling is the the nature of our regulatory system. They are designed by rogue and unelected bureaucrats. Regulations effectively become laws with little oversight or accountability. 

This isn’t a small problem. Take for example your elected representatives in Congress. In 2015, CEI finds that Congress enacted 114 laws (that’s probably too many). However, unelected bureaucrats issued 3,410 rules in that same year. In other words, the “fourth” branch of government that is unaccountable issued 30 regulatory decrees for every one law passed by Congress. That’s simply insane. 

In total, there are 178,277 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations which outline the 94,000 rules currently on the books. The cost to enforce all these regulations comes at a massive price. CEI finds that federal agencies spent $63 billion in taxpayer dollars to administer and police this regulatory enterprise.

As bad as this seems, it’s about to get worse. There are currently 3,297 new regulations in the implementation phase. Of this total, CEI finds that 218 are considered “economically significant,” a definition the government uses when a regulation will have an economic impact of $100 million or more. 

The hidden regulatory tax is becoming dangerous to American democracy. The regulatory apparatus is out of control. Over the past 23 years, the number of regulations has increased by 2,060 percent. Individuals that are not elected, or confirmed by elected representatives, should not have such great authority and power over our lives. 

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is eye-opening.

Eventually Everyone Figures This Out

Posted on by

This post is based on an article on The Federalist Papers website. It consists of two quotes about welfare and the consequences of our current welfare programs.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback explained the problems with our current welfare system:

“Welfare is failing, just not for the reason you think. For too long, conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C., has dictated the best way to move people out of poverty is to expand welfare programs so that individuals could possibly, gradually, work their way out of dependency.

Kansas’ recent reform experience turns that notion upside down.

It is now clear that welfare fails because it ensnares people in poverty by paying them to not work. Welfare fails because it discourages people from improving their lives. So many recipients don’t work and get caught on welfare, suffering in poverty for years…even generations.

Fortunately, there’s a proven way to help.

Kansas shows what’s possible when you free people from the welfare trap. With assistance from the Foundation for Government Accountability, Kansas just completed the most comprehensive welfare tracking project of its kind. We matched more than 41,000 individuals as they moved off welfare with their employment records at the state’s Department of Labor.

…When moved off food stamps, half of these Kansans began working immediately. Nearly three-fifths were employed within 12 months and their incomes rose by an average of 127 percent during that first year. Incomes kept increasing as they progressed to full-time work and increased their wages. Better still, those higher wages more than offset the food stamps lost, making them more financially secure. This is real success!

Kansas’ simple reforms have led to more employment, higher incomes, less poverty, and lower spending.

Even those still on food stamps (but now required to work to keep them) are twice as likely to be working and have also substantially increased their incomes, though their overall incomes are still not as high as those freed completely from welfare. The result is that these individuals now need less help and their average time on food stamps is cut in half.

…For too long, Washington, D.C. has encouraged states to extend food stamps and expand Medicaid to ever more able-bodied adults. They promised welfare as an economic stimulus and states – red and blue alike –bought it. The result is not stimulus, but malaise.

People on welfare are working less, earning less and as a result are trapped in poverty. Millions of them. It’s a national tragedy.

Fortunately, states have many reform tools to roll back what has become the gateway to dependency: food stamps. States can assist their citizens by restoring work requirements, time limits, asset tests, reducing eligibility loopholes, and eliminating fraud.

Once free, those previously dependent on the government are motivated to work and earn more than just money: they gain self-worth, dignity, and a hopeful future. All things a person can’t get from welfare.

Americans know the value of hard work. That’s why common-sense work requirements were core to the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform that turns 20 this year.

Now is the perfect time for Congress to expand work requirements and time limits for non-disabled adults on all welfare programs – including Medicaid, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion, food stamps, and housing. It’s time to start holding states to asset tests for all welfare programs. It’s time to return welfare to the truly needy and stop trapping Americans in government dependency.

With these reforms, Congress can help restore the working class and give real hope to millions still trapped in poverty and a failing welfare system.”

The second quote is from Benjamin Franklin:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor.

Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? — On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.

The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness.

In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

We don’t do anyone any good by giving them things they did not have to work for. There is something in human nature that feels a sense of accomplishment when we earn something and feels less than capable when we have to depend on someone else for everything. We need a change of attitude in the American welfare system. It’s time to help people get back to work instead of encouraging them to take more from those who do work.

A Guess It’s Okay To Kill Birds As Long As You Do It With Green Energy

Posted on by

One of the supposed reasons for the rejection of the Keystone Pipeline was its supposed negative impact on the environment. Those objecting to the Pipeline chose to overlook the fact that pipelines have a better safety record than the trains currently transporting the oil. (Not to mention that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, owned by Warren Buffett, a friend of President Obama, is currently transporting the oil). At any rate, the Keystone Pipeline was rejected due to a claimed negative impact on the environment.

Fast forward to 2016. Fox News reported yesterday that the regulations surrounding wind farms have been revised by the Obama Administration.

The article reports:

The Obama administration is revising a federal rule that allows wind-energy companies to operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years, even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

Under the plan announced Wednesday, companies could kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles a year without penalty — nearly four times the current limit. Golden eagles could only be killed if companies take steps to minimize the losses, for instance, by retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution.

Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said the proposal will “provide a path forward” for maintaining eagle populations while also spurring development of a pollution-free energy source that’s intended to ease global warming, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan.

Ashe said the 162-page proposal would protect eagles and at the same time “help the country reduce its reliance on fossil fuels” such as coal and oil that contribute to global warming.

First of all, for the truth about global warming see the website wattsupwiththat. It posts the latest scientific information on the global warming hoax. You can also use the search engine on this website to look up previous articles on the subject.

The article further reports:

Under the new proposal, companies would pay a $36,000 fee for a long-term permit allowing them to kill or injure eagles. Companies would have to commit to take additional measures if they kill or injure more eagles than estimated, or if new information suggests eagle populations are being affected.

The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they kill. Now such reporting is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information.

Companies would be charged a $15,000 administrative fee every five years for long-term permits. The fees would cover costs to the Fish and Wildlife Service of conducting five-year evaluations and developing modifications, the agency said.

If an oil spill killed this many birds, there would be a very loud outcry. This is ridiculous. The other thing to remember here is that in its current state, wind energy will never fully replace carbon energy–it is not as reliable and cannot be depended upon to generate electricity 24 hours a day. If you only want electricity a few hours a day, it might work, but I can’t imagine most Americans accepting that. I would also like to remind people that in 2013 the Town of Falmouth Massachusetts held a vote to remove its windmill because of the problems it was causing (low pitched vibrations causing headaches, sleeplessness, and other problems) See article posted here.

We don’t yet have the technology for efficient green energy. The government needs to stop subsidizing and let the free market take over. If the solution is out there, the free market will find it. Until then, relax, global warming is a hoax to get more money from wealth countries into the hands of dictators in poor countries.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Posted on by

As I have previously mentioned, I am no longer a registered member of the Republican Party. That has nothing to do with Donald Trump although he was not my choice for President–it has to do with the way the Republican establishment routinely behaves. They have reached the point where they are no different than the Democratic Party. They are all about power, and power includes controlling as much of the taxpayers’ money as possible. The Republican platform is still good–it is pro-life, pro-family, and supports the things that made America great. However, the actions of the establishment Republicans in many cases do not line up with the platform. Also, recently in North Carolina, the actions of the establishment Republicans were unethical and a disgrace to the party. No wonder the voters are angry (on both sides of the political spectrum).

The New Boston Post is reporting today that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will not be attending the Republican Convention this year. Governor Romney has stated that he does not support Donald Trump as the candidate and would rather write someone in.

This infuriates me. If Governor Romney had taken as strong a stand against President Obama, he might have won the 2012 election. I like Governor Romney. I believe that he is a good man, but this is ridiculous. I also like George W. Bush and his father. They have stated that they will sit out the 2016 Presidential campaign. What a bunch of sore losers. As I have said before, Donald Trump was not my choice in the primary election. However, he is the only candidate left standing other than Hillary Clinton. I hope the grass roots elect him just to remind the Republican establishment that the voters are supposed to have some say in the process.

If the average American voter wants to take their country back from establishment politicians, they will support Donald Trump. That was not my first choice, but right now it is the only choice we have. It’s not that I am convinced that Donald Trump will make a great President, I just think that he has had enough experience choosing good people to work with him to turn America around. I also think that he has enough wealth invested in America to want to restore our financial health. He is not my first choice, but right now he is the only choice. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to put Barack Obama on the Supreme Court. Between the two of them, they will rewrite the Constitution to take away many of the basic freedoms Americans enjoy. Think carefully before you vote in November.

The Truth Begins To Come Out

Posted on by

If you are reading this blog, chances are you voted in the primary election wherever you live–most of the people who read this blog are politically active. People who vote in primary elections believe that their vote counts and will make a difference. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Because of the recent events in the North Carolina Republican Party, I am no longer registered as a Republican voter. I see very few differences between the parties at this point. I will be voting for Donald Trump because I don’t want Hillary Clinton picking Supreme Court Justices. However, I really don’t expect a lot of change in Washington regardless of who wins.

The Republican establishment is strong, and they are very capable of causing trouble for anyone who truly wants change.

The Daily Haymaker posted an article today about the real reasons behind the coup in the North Carolina Republican party that took place on Saturday. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article. I will, however, provide a few excerpts.

The article was written by Brant Clifton and quotes Sammy Dodd, who was a delegate to the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa.

Mr. Dodd writes:

In 2012 I was elected as a National Delegate to the RNC National Convention in Tampa, Florida. Many of the political hijinks that were pulled that year are well documented. Everything from the results of voice votes on a huge teleprompter before the vote was taken, changing the Party Rules to prevent Ron Paul from being nominated from the floor, disqualifying delegates from the State of Maine and replacing them with Romney delegates, and finally then Chairman Robin Hayes strong-arming the North Carolina delegation to support the Rules change.

Robin Hayes is the newly-elected Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party (after the coup that deposed Hasan Harnett).

Mr. Dodd continues:

In North Carolina, National Delegates are bound to vote in accordance with the results of our Primary. This is not only State Party rules, but State Law. The purpose of this law is to ensure that the Primary voters’ votes are represented at the Convention.

  Knowing that, in 2012 I pledged my vote and was bound to Newt Gingrich. At the time of the Primary, Romney, Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum were all in the race, so each candidate received a certain number of delegates according to the percentage of the votes. But before the Convention, Gingrich and Santorum dropped out. However, by State Law and Party Rules, Gingrich and Santorum delegates were still supposed to cast their votes accordingly on the first ballot. In fact, the NCGOP made me sign a pledge form, threatening legal action and up to a TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR fine for deviating from said pledge.

When it came time to cast that first vote, no one came to me and asked how I was voting or to give me a ballot to cast my vote. Instead, the North Carolina delegation “voted” 49 for Romney, and 6 for Ron Paul. So what happened to the Gingrich and Santorum votes? Simple. My vote was cast for me without my prior knowledge or consent. In essence, this vote was not only in violation of State Party rules, but violation of State Law!

Robin Hayes is, and was, directly responsible for how the North Carolina delegation was to be proportioned and bound.  Fortunately, I have not yet been held responsible for my law-breaking vote. The reason Ron Paul received votes was to appease his supporters and keep them at bay.

…And how you may ask, does the Kangaroo “Trial” Court annihilation of Chairman Harnett on April 30th 2016 relate? Not only is the State Chairman unbound by virtue of his position, but also he has control of the delegation and its proportioning. By his actions in 2012, Hayes showed that he is the RNC’s puppet, and with a contested convention likely in Cleveland, the RNC needs their tool/agent/Chairman to control the North Carolina delegation. They knew Chairman Harnett would have followed Party Rules and State Law; Hayes will not.  So what occurred on April 30th had nothing to do with the bogus set-up hacking charge or State Convention fees. This was, and is, about the RNC and the NC Delegation all along.

Americans have given up their choice of President. I will be voting for Donald Trump because I feel that Hillary Clinton is a true radical. However, I will not rejoin the Republican Party until they change the way they do business.

 

The Government Just Doesn’t Do Things Better

Posted on by

If you are planning an airline trip to your summer destination this summer, be prepared for long lines at the security screening checkpoint at the airport. Budget cuts are blamed for the increased time, but that is not actually the case.

The thing to remember when you hear anyone in Washington talk about a budget cut is that they are not talking about an actual budget cut. The mentality in Washington is very similar to the wife who comes home from the shopping mall with multiple bags of goodies and says to her husband, “See how much money I saved you today?” She never mentions how much money she would have saved if she had avoided the shopping mall to begin with. Washington uses baseline budgeting. This totally distorts what is actually happening with spending. If Agency A spends $100 this year, it is assumed that they will need more money next year. So Agency A asks for $125 this year (a 25 percent increase in its budget). Congress reviews the request and only gives them $110. Agency A then reports that it has cut its spending 15 percent. Only in Washington is a 10 percent increase considered a 15 percent cut. The bottom line–never believe anyone in Washington who talks about spending cuts.

Meanwhile, back to the TSA. Investors.com posted an article today about the cause of the delays.

The article reports:

Blame for this disaster is said to be tight budgets and staff cutbacks at the TSA.  As The New York Times put it: “A combination of fewer Transportation Security Administration screeners, tighter budgets, new checkpoint procedures and growing numbers of passengers is already creating a mess at airports around the country.”

That is always the excuse whenever a government agency fails to its job. In this case, it’s simply not true. At $7.3 billion this year, TSA’s budget is 9% higher than it was in 2007. Its full-time workforce climbed by 4.3% over those years, according to official budget documents. (The TSA conveniently measures its current budget and staffing against the peak produced by President Obama’s massive stimulus spending.)

More important is the fact that the TSA’s gains since 2007 came at a time of declining air travel. Over those same years, the number of passengers traveling from major U.S. airports dropped 7%, and the number of commercial flights fell more than 22%, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Plus, the TSA has fewer airports to manage than it once did, since 22 — including San Francisco International, Kansas City International — have ditched the TSA and hired private security firms to do their passenger screening.

The TSA is another illustration of the fact that the private sector does everything better than the government.

The article further reports:

The Transportation Dept. ran tests early last year, and found that for all the hassle they impose on passengers, TSA agents failed to detect illicit material 95% of the time. When the inspection agency followed up later in the year, it discovered that little had changed. In fact, part of the reason for the agonizing delays at airports today is that the TSA has dramatically slowed down the screening process in a ham-handed attempt to improve reliability.

In 2010, a documentary film entitled, “Please Remove Your Shoes” was released. It is available on Amazon. I strongly recommend buying it and watching it. The TSA has not made us safer–they have created an illusion of safety that has nothing to do with reality. It is time to remove the TSA and replace them with private security. That will not only save taxpayers money–it will keep us all safer.

Congress Needs To Stop Any Further Releases From Guantanamo

Posted on by

Yesterday Front Page Magazine reported that President Obama has released Mashur Abdallah Ahmed al Sabri from Guantanamo Bay detention center and sent him to Saudi Arabia as a free man.

The article reports:

Walid bin Attash, a planner of the USS Cole bombing and who also played a role in the 9/11 attack, is still at Gitmo. His trial continues to drag on while he and his lawyers play games. Rahim Hussein al-Nashiri, another of the planners, is still awaiting trial. But Mashur Abdallah Ahmed al Sabri, one of the members of the USS Cole cell, has already been released by Barack Obama from Guantanamo Bay.

Sabri was rated as a high risk terrorist who is ”is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies”, but that was no obstacle for Obama who had already fired one Secretary of Defense for being slow to free dangerous Al Qaeda terrorists and was browbeating his latest appointee over the same issue. 

The very paperwork that was used as the basis for the decision to free Sabri describes him as “a member of a Yemeni al-Qaida cell directly involved with the USS Cole attack”. This cell “conducted surveillance” on the targeted vessel and “prepared explosives for the bombing”. Sabri had been arrested in Yemen for his involvement in the attack before he managed to make his way to Afghanistan.

Now he is a free man and has been sent back to the homeland of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

After praising the “beautiful religious tradition” of Islam, which the USS Cole terrorists had “twisted”, President Clinton had promised that, “America will not stop standing guard”. 

But under him, it never even started standing guard. 

I understand that President Obama made a promise to close down the detention center at Guantanamo before he leaves office, but his actions are putting American soldiers at risk. The recidivism rate of Guantanamo prisoners has been disputed–claims range from less than 20 percent to over 80 percent. Either way, the death of any American soldiers at the hands of former Guantanamo prisoners is totally unacceptable. Congress needs to take action against these continuing prisoner releases. American lives are at stake.

Is American Sovereignty Important?

Posted on by

America is now more than two hundred years old. The U.S. Constitution that we began with is still in place. We are still a sovereign nation. Most of us take our freedom and national sovereignty for granted, but what are some of the forces working against our freedom and against our sovereignty and what are we doing to stop them?

Well, one U.S. House of Representatives member has come up with a good place to start. Alabama’s Representative Mike Rogers on March 2, 2015, introduced H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015 into the House of Representatives. The bill has about a 1 percent of being passed, but at least it was introduced. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The bill would end the United States’ membership in the United Nations. Why would we want to do that? Because the United Nations as of late has become a sounding board for tin horn dictators who want to take money from free countries who have earned it and give the money to other tyrants who have not. Part of their objective is to undermine the sovereignty of free western countries and set up a worldwide government that will control everyone and be run be a few elites who will establish the rules but not have to live by them. I just happen to have a few examples of what the United Nations has done in recent years that should be cause for alarm.

Some comments from the Washington Times about the UN Arms Trade Treaty:

The criteria that arms should not be used to “prolong” or “aggravate” instability is troubling. China could use such a provision to label U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as a violation of international law. In 1941, such a treaty would have made illegal the U.S. lend-lease program to aid Britain before Pearl Harbor.

The implication is absurd: If giving arms to an ally fighting a tyrant prolongs the conflict, the only “legal” option for the ally is to surrender.

Another problem is the draft’s invocation of “international human rights law.” Unfortunately, liberal activists often claim that strict gun control is a “human right.” This reference, then, could be interpreted in ways that infringe on Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.

Why should we care what some U.N. treaty says? Just ignore it, you say, because our Constitution trumps everything. Well, not if the U.S. signs and the Senate ratifies it. At that point, the treaty carries the weight of U.S. domestic law.

Forbes Magazine posted the following about The Law of the Sea Treaty:

Then there’s the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.

The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

Both of the above articles are from 2012. This is not a new thing.

According to the website appinsys.com:

On November 14, 2010 the NZZ Online had an interview with Ottmar Edenhofer (Edenhofer is joint chair of IPCC Working Group 3 and deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology).

Mr. Edenhofer stated:

  • …“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore … But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Last night I went to see the movie “Climate Hustle.” There was a lot in the movie that I was already aware of, but it was nice to see it organized and in one place. I don’t know if and when the movie will be shown again, but it is worth seeing.

Representative Rogers H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015  may never get out of committee. That in itself illustrates the need for change in Washington. If we don’t change our representatives in Washington, we may lose our sovereignty as a country and our lifestyle.

Republicans In Virginia Are Suing To Preserve An Honest Election In 2016

Posted on by

On April 25, I posted an article about the Executive Order issued by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe giving convicted felons the right to vote. The Executive Order would add approximately 200,000 votes to the voter rolls. The majority of the felons would be expected to register and vote as Democrats. Evidently, Virginia Republicans have decided to fight the Executive Order.

ABC News is reporting today:

Republican lawmakers in Virginia will file a lawsuit challenging Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s decision to allow more than 200,000 convicted felons to vote in November, GOP leaders said Monday.

Republicans argue the governor has overstepped his constitutional authority with a clear political ploy designed to help the campaign of his friend and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the important swing state this fall.

“Gov. McAuliffe’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution of Virginia and the rule of law must not go unchecked,” Senate Republican Leader Thomas Norment said in a statement. He added that McAuliffe’s predecessors and previous attorneys general examined this issue and concluded Virginia’s governor can’t issue blanket restorations.

A National Review article posted on April 25th points out:

It is estimated that McAuliffe’s action will add 3.8 percent to the 5.4 million registered voters in Virginia. That may not seem like a lot, but McAuliffe knows very well that Virginia today is a swing state with recent statewide elections that have been decided by a very small margin. In 2013, the current attorney general, Mark Herring (D.), won his race by only 907 votes. Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R.) won his prior post as attorney general by only 360 votes in 2005. Even the Washington Post, which applauded McAuliffe’s action, acknowledged there is “no doubt” about the “political dimension” in this move by “a Democrat and longtime friend and fundraiser for Bill and Hillary Clinton” — namely, that it “grant[s] Democrats a crucial edge in a swing state ahead of November’s presidential election.”

If the Republicans expect to survive in Virginia, they need to fight back.

Filling A Bottomless Pit

Posted on by

In January of this year, I posted an article entitled, “If You Give A Mouse A Cookie,” relating to a children’s book published in 2013. The basic story line of the book is that if you give a mouse a cookie he will expect milk and other things to go with it. That story had to do with a company in Wisconsin that discovered that whatever concessions you make to a special interest group, they will not be enough. This story has to do with the tax situation in Princeton, New Jersey.

MSM posted a story today about a discussion in Princeton, New Jersey, about whether or not Princeton University should be tax exempt.

The article states:

Free lectures, admission to athletic games and concerts, even shuttles to Trader Joe’s are some of the perks that neighbors of Princeton University get from New Jersey’s only Ivy League school.

A growing number of residents, though, resent the gestures. Riding a national wave of discontent with nonprofit institutions, they’re suing to challenge the tax-exempt status of Princeton, whose $22.7 billion endowment makes it the fourth-richest U.S. university. The outcome could cut homeowners’ annual property taxes, averaging $17,699, by a third. It also could end the freebies that make Princeton a cushy oasis while other New Jersey towns, burdened by high public-worker costs and flat state aid, struggle to maintain basic services.

There are a lot of questions that come to mind after reading this. What is the budget of Princeton, and has anyone considered cutting the budget?

The article further reports:

The university pays its hometown about $8 million in annual levies toward a proposed $61.9 million municipal budget. It kicks in another $3 million voluntarily, a boost for emergency services and public works. The rest, the freebies, make for what the school calls positive town-and-gown relations.

So the tax-exempt University already pays more than 10 percent of the municipal budget, and now the city wants to take away its tax-exempt status. It’s interesting to me that the article cites the worth of the University to support its argument. This is classic redistribution of wealth. Princeton has acquired its wealth honestly. It belongs to Princeton. Now the municipality is trying to figure a way to take what has been rightfully earned away from the entity that earned it and give it to the city, which hasn’t earned it. Maybe it’s time that the City of Princeton redid its budget rather than resorting to legal theft.

Another Perspective On The Middle East Turmoil

Posted on by

The Middle East Forum is one of the few honest sources of news from the Middle East. They have a history of telling the truth regardless of where it leads.

On April 28 the Middle East Forum posted an article about Turkey’s involvement in the Syrian Civil War. One of the things to remember when evaluating the role of Turkey is their hostility to the Kurds. One thing that would help bring stability to the Middle East would be an independent Kurdish state. Turkey fears that because that state would be a true secular state on the Turkish border. As Turkey moves closer to being an Islamic state, that situation would not be acceptable. There have been numerous reports of Turkey using military equipment provided by America against Kurdish forces.

The article in the Middle East Forum reports:

On March 24, a Turkish court released seven members of IS, including the commander of the jihadists’ operations on Turkish soil. A total of 96 suspects are on trial, including the seven men who were detained but released. All are free now, although the indictment against them claims that they

engaged in the activities of the terrorist organization called DAESH [Arabic acronym of IS]. The suspects had sent persons to the conflict zones; they applied pressure, force, violence and threats by using the name of the terrorist organization, and they had provided members and logistic support for the group.

The release of terror suspects came in sharp contrast with another court decision that ruled for a trial, but while under detention, for four academics who had signed a petition calling for peace in Turkey’s Kurdish dispute. Unlike the IS militants, the academics remain behind bars.

The article further reports:

Russia has been claiming that Turkey keeps supporting the Islamic State through trading the jihadists’ oil, their main source of income. A new report claims that total supplies to terrorists in Syria last year was 2,500 tons of ammonium nitrate; 456 tons of potassium nitrate; 75 tons of aluminum powder; sodium nitrate; glycerin; and nitric acid. The report stated:

In order to pass through the border controls unimpeded, effectively with the complicity of the Turkish authorities, products are processed for companies that are purportedly registered in Jordan and Iraq … Registration and processing of the cargo are organized at customs posts in the [Turkish] cities of Antalya, Gaziantep and Mersin. Once the necessary procedures have been carried out, the goods pass unhindered through the border crossings at Cilvegozu and Oncupinar.

Turkey keeps playing a fake war on jihadist terrorists. At a March meeting with top U.S. officials, King Abdullah of Jordan accused Turkey of exporting terrorists to Europe. He said: “The fact that terrorists are going to Europe is part of Turkish policy and Turkey keeps on getting a slap on the hand, but they are let off the hook.”

…Apparently, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan‘s declared political ambition to “raise devout generations” seems to have geared up. Turkey’s Religious Affairs General Directorate (Diyanet), the ultimate official religious authority in the country, recently issued comic books to the nation’s children telling them how marvelous it is to become an Islamic martyr.

One comic strip is a dialogue between a father and his son. “How marvelous it is to become a martyr,” the father says. Unconvinced, the son asks: “Would anyone want to become a martyr?” And the father replies: “Yes, one would. Who doesn’t want to win heaven?”

And this is the country its Western allies believe will help them fight jihadists? Lots of luck!

We need to reevaluate our policies in the Middle East. Common sense is not part of our current policy.