Monthly Archives: October 2016

What About First Amendment Laws?

Posted on by

This is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing here about separation of church and state–that concept was based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in1802. He was reiterating the fact that the government of America was not going to establish a national religion. He was assuring the group that they would be free to practice their religion and live their lives accordingly.

Fast forward to Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Women in the World Summit on April 23, 2015:

In case you missed it:

Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

If you want religious freedom to continue in America, you cannot support Hillary Clinton. Just for the record, pregnancy care is available to all women in America and will continue to be so regardless of who wins this election. Abortion is a million dollar industry that pours millions into Democratic campaign coffers. That is the reason so many Democrats support it. Abortion needs to be legal when the heath of the mother is threatened by pregnancy, but it should be done in hospitals under medical supervision–it should not be a million dollar industry. If you are not familiar with the percentage of minority children killed in abortion vs. the percentage of while children killed in abortion, please look up the numbers. Also look up the beliefs of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and her comments about race.

How To Lie Effectively With Statistics

Posted on by

Many of the media polls tell us that this election will be a landslide for Hillary Clinton. When you consider the crowds Hillary is drawing vs. the crowds Donald Trump is drawing, that seems a little odd. But on the other hand, Bernie Sanders drew big crowds. Yes, but we found out later that the Democratic primary was rigged from the start. We don’t know what the result might have been in an honest primary (or how much voter fraud we will see in this election).

Conservative Treehouse posted a story today about how the mainstream media slants the polls. But before I get to that, I want to wander into the woods a little about why the mainstream media leans so far left. Somewhere during the 1950’s and 1960’s, a lot of our colleges hired people with left-leaning philosophies. I remember hearing at one point a comment that one college professor made that he thought it was his duty to separate his students from all of the moral, religious, political ideas and principles they had grown up with. Supposedly that was going to turn them into free thinkers. I think all that it actually did was take away their moral foundation and convince them to become sheep. That is a far cry from where where we started–Harvard University began as a place to train pastors for the early New England settlers so that they didn’t have to depend on England to fill the pulpits in the new land. At the same time our colleges were leaning left, Christians were being discouraged from finding jobs in ‘secular fields.’ Somehow the idea was introduced into our culture that Christianity belonged in church and was not supposed to be influential in the public square (I seem to remember something in the Bible about being salt that totally contradicts that idea). We have had liberal leanings in our colleges and our media for more than fifty years. Our culture and our children reflect that. The foundational values of America are no longer understood or practiced by a large portion of our population. We have lost our work ethic, our moral compass, our community standards of decency, and our unity. That is not an accident. It is the result of neglecting to teach our children the values we grew up with or having those values undermined by our educational system. It is going to take at least one generation to rediscover our moral compass if that is at all possible. Just for the record–the rediscovery of our moral compass will not be a result of this or any other election–it will be the result of individual people taking the responsibility to teaching their children the basic values that made America great.

Meanwhile, please go to Conservative Treehouse to see how you are being manipulated by fake poll numbers. It is a rather long and complex article, but it really explains a lot. All you have to do to skew a poll is skew the sample, and that is what is being done.

This is the conclusion from the Conservative Treehouse article:

♦ $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.

♦ The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

♦ NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.

♦ Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.

Do you see now how “media polling” works, and why we advise to ignore it?

That’s how the game is played.

Remembering Their Purpose

Posted on by

Yesterday CNS News posted an article featuring an interview with General Boykin on the subject of transgender integration in our military.

The article reports:

Commenting on the Defense Department‘s newly released handbook to train the military on how to integrate transgender people into the services, Lt. Gen. (ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin, former chief of U.S. Army Special Operations Command and a top member of Delta Force, said the primary question is how does this transgender social experiment enhance the ability of the U.S. military to fight and win wars?

“Again it comes back to what is the purpose of the military? What’s their mission? It’s to fight and win wars,” said Gen. Boykin in an Oct. 5 interview on Washington Watch with host Tony Perkins.  

“That’s what Douglas McArthur said at West Point in 1962,” said Boykin.  “‘Your mission remains determined, fixed, inviolable.’ It is to win the nation’s wars. Ask yourself how does this enhance the ability to win wars?” 

Aside from making drastic cuts to our military, the Obama Administration has somehow decided that the purpose of the military is to conduct social experiments. That has negatively impacted not only the morale of our troops, but also their readiness and ability to do their job. Our military is there to defend us. It is time to let them do their job without unnecessary distractions.

The article further reports:

Host Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council, then said, “I mean the Pentagon spokesperson, the spokesperson for the Pentagon says — notice they say spokesperson, not spokesman or woman because you just don’t know — is ‘designed to assist our transgender service members in their gender transitions, help commanders with their duties and responsibilities, and help all service members understand new policies enabling the open service of transgender service members.’”

Gen. Boykin replied, “Again it comes back to what is the purpose of the military? What’s their mission? It’s to fight and win wars. That’s what Douglas McArthur said at West Point in 1962. ‘Your mission remains determined, fixed, inviolable.’ It is to win the nation’s wars. Ask yourself how does this enhance the ability to win wars?” 

Have we forgotten the purpose of our military?

Why None Of The Normal Rules Apply To The Current Election Cycle

Posted on by

Yesterday Nigel Farage posted an article at the U.K. Telegraph containing his observations on the current American election.

Mr. Farage shares his story and observations:

When I arrived at the Republican Party convention in Cleveland, Ohio, back in July, I was amazed at the reaction to me over the Brexit result. Normally we follow trends in America, not the other way round, but it was clear that many of the delegates saw Brexit as an aspiration for what they see as the Trump “revolution” against the Establishment. I met many others who were not delegates or political anoraks, who were also keen to talk about Brexit. A group of retired US Navy veterans told me we should have done it years ago. Others were less impressed and shouted at me in the streets. Indeed, this weekend while I was in St Louis, I received some proper abuse on the Washington University campus. 

…Like him or loathe him, Trump is not a part of the political elite and he most certainly is not constrained by political correctness. When I spoke at one of his rallies in Jackson, Mississippi, I saw a fanatical gathering of his fans who want to give the Establishment a good hiding. “We want our country back” works as a slogan here, too. The first signs of a political rebellion took the form of the Tea Party. The satirist Ian Hislop once described it as rather like Ukip – but with God and guns. They not only railed against the Washington elites, but made the link between big business, Wall Street banks and Washington politics. The same story is behind the growth of new parties across the whole of the European Union and was an important feature in voters’ minds in the UK this June.

Not only did JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs help to fund the Remain campaign but they increasingly give the appearance of owning a whole section of our political class. When Berlusconi was forced to resign as the Italian prime minister, he was replaced by the unelected Mario Monti, a Goldman Sachs man. 

…I met many people at the rally in Jackson, Mississippi, who had never voted in their lives. They may produce an upset similar to Brexit. It does not matter what the opinion polls, bookmakers or markets say, because these new voters are hard to measure. 

I do not see the Brexit result in isolation. Instead, I believe we are witnessing a popular uprising against failed politics on a global scale. People want to vote for candidates with personality, faults and all. It is the same in the UK, America and much of the rest of Europe. The little people have had enough. They want change.

This is going to be an interesting election. If voter fraud is kept under control, Donald Trump will be our next President. If not, I can’t even imaging the darkness this country will go through–we will no longer be equal under the law–some will permanently be more equal than others. It is not a pretty picture.

 

Huh?

Posted on by

As a blogger, I follow the news closely. I see a lot of things I don’t understand, but sometimes I am just amazed at how the media spins the events around us.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are running for President., He is an extremely successful businessman, and she is a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. There is no doubt that she has had more political experience than he has, but much of that political experience has involved failure rather than success.There are scandals swirling around both candidates–hers relating to pay-for-play while Secretary of State, lying to Congress, lying to the American people, defending her husband when his actions were despicable, etc. His scandals involve locker-room talk, divorces, probably more illegally recorded remarks to come.

I went looking for the turnover rate in Trump businesses, thinking that might give me some insight as to how Donald Trump runs things. I did find information about Trump Towers in New York City. One of the anonymous reviews by employees listed the following as a negative, “Longevity – it is an issue for anyone looking to advance with the company since most dept heads have been there for many years and have no intention of leaving.” Evidently (at least at Trump Towers in New York) the turnover rate is low. I think that is something that needs to be mentioned while the Clinton campaign attempts to convince the American voters that Donald Trump is a horrible monster not fit to lead a Boy Scout Troop.

I am having a hard time understanding why a private conversation (horrible as it was and probably more to come) is given the same weight as failed foreign policy, corruption, stonewalling federal investigations, intimidating women her husband has sexually assaulted, etc. It just doesn’t make sense to me. If the conversations we heard are an illustration of character, how is that character any worse than the character of his opponent. In one case we have talk, in the other case we have actions. They are not equal.

In watching this unfold, we need to look underneath what is happening at the core of the matter. Donald Trump is a serious threat to the status quo. The cozy little Washington establishment currently composed of both Democrats and Republicans is becoming unglued at the idea of someone coming in and changing the rules. Currently we don’t have a working Constitution–we have whatever President Obama says. The Justice Department was corrupted from the beginning (illustrated by the New Black Panthers case). The undermining of the Police was there from the beginning (the comment ‘police acted stupidly’ paved the way for charges of racism in later years). There are currently some serious questions about the politicization of the FBI, and we all remember the politicization of the IRS. We the little people in America know that we need to go back to equal justice under the law. We also understand that under President Hillary Clinton that will never happen. At least under President Donald Trump it might.

Regardless of how abhorrent Donald Trump’s comments were, and how abhorrent any future illegally taped comments are, they are comments–not proven actions. Meanwhile, we have a list of deplorable actions taken over the years by Hillary Clinton, along with the failure of her policies as Secretary of State. Why are we talking about illegally taped comments?

While We Were All Focused On A Shiny Object Over There…

Posted on by

BizPacReview reported yesterday about some information in the Obama Administration’s Friday night document dump.

The article reports:

Before the start of the Columbus Day holiday weekend, the Treasury Department made it easier for offshore banking institutions to make transactions with Iran, as long as the money doesn’t actually enter the U.S. financial system. Although many sanctions were lifted as a part of the Iran deal, certain “specially designated nationals,” or SDNs, are still subject to the sanctions for reasons which include their human rights record or support for terror groups.

Now, even these SDNs are no longer completely banned from transacting with U.S. businesses.

The Associated Press reports that this change in the rules is the result of complaints from Iran that the remaining U.S. Sanctions have limited Iran in its commercial dealings with other countries.

The article concludes:

Just another bad postscript to a bad deal, and we can expect plenty more of the same if people keep paying attention to the puppet shows instead of the man, or woman, behind the curtain.

The Iran deal was a really bad deal. We are financing terrorism and the development of an atomic bomb by Iran. We can expect more of the same from a President Hillary Clinton.

What Would Be The Result Of This Goal?

Posted on by

On September 13th, The Daily Signal posted an article about one of the goals of the current Democratic Party. This explains one of the reasons this coming election is so important.

The article reports:

Sen. Chuck Schumer has reminded us just how important the upcoming presidential election will be in shaping the federal judiciary, calling getting a progressive Supreme Court his “number one goal.”

So what would a progressive Supreme Court mean?

The article cites a few examples:

Schumer specifically criticized a 2013 decision involving a 5-4 decision about voting rights. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court held that Section 4 of the Voting Right Act, which set forth a 40-year-old coverage formula laying out which states needed to get preapproval from the federal government before making any changes in their voting laws, was unconstitutional.

The court explained that Congress “did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions” and that the formula had “no logical relation to the present day.”

As Roll Call reported, Schumer “predicted that the Shelby County decision on voting rights would be overturned by a Supreme Court with the kind of progressive justices he would prioritize confirming as majority leader.”

A progressive Supreme Court would, therefore, be willing to infringe on states’ rights.

The article further reports:

The high court has been closely divided on a number of contentious issues in recent years: the Second Amendment (Heller, McDonald), religious liberty (Hobby Lobby, Town of Greece), the First Amendment (Citizens United), racial preferences (Fisher I), and the death penalty (Glossip), among others. One vote made the difference in each of these cases, which most consider as victories for the conservative wing of the court.

Our basic liberties are at stake. Are we going to follow the Constitution or are we going to become a banana republic? Consider this when you vote.

The Central Issue In The November Presidential Election

Posted on by

There are a lot of issues floating around the presidential election in November–globalism vs. nationalism, gun control vs. the Second Amendment, freedom of speech, religious freedom, etc., but there is one very subtle issue that really needs to be looked at carefully if you care about the future of America.

On Wednesday, the American Family Association (AFA) posted an article about a recent statement by Donald Trump about this election.

In August, The Washington Post reported:

Donald Trump, trailing narrowly in presidential polls, has issued a warning to worried Republican voters: The election will be “rigged” against him — and he could lose as a result.

Trump pointed to several court cases nationwide in which restrictive laws requiring voters to show identification have been thrown out. He said those decisions open the door to fraud in November.

“If the election is rigged, I would not be surprised,” he told The Washington Post in an interview Tuesday afternoon. “The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development. We may have people vote 10 times.”

The article was dismissive of the charges–not a surprise, considering the political bent of the newspaper, but we have seen clear evidence of voter fraud in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, so the idea of voter fraud is not shocking.

The AFA article explains exactly how the system is rigged:

This makes two debates in the past week where the moderator’s biases have been clearly evident. The American people can’t even get a fair and balanced debate.  Why? Because the Left’s ideas don’t work and if there ever were to be a fair debate, this would become quite obvious.

We all remember the role Candy Crowley‘s misinformation played in the 2012 debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama. We can expect more of that sort of thing in the coming debates.

The AFA article further explains:

Over recent years, rogue federal judges have struck down voter I.D. laws in several key states. Laws aimed at preventing voter fraud have been partially or fully struck down in states like Texas, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin to name a few. Many of the judges claimed that the voter I.D. laws would have caused a decrease in turnout for minority voters, specifically blacks.

This should be an offense to the entire black community. A federal judge makes the assumption that minorities aren’t responsible enough to acquire a government issued identification card. If individuals have to show their I.D. when buying tobacco or when going to see an R rated movie, then why is it unjust to apply the same standard to something as important as voting?

I would like to note that the majority of the judges ruling against voter ID were appointed by Democrats.

So what am I saying? The system is definitely slanted against Republicans. If Hillary is elected, that will continue and she will probably add to the problem. Unless you want America to become a banana republic where one party rules and is above the law, you need to vote for Trump. I really don’t care what the man does or what he is accused of, he is the alternative to losing our freedom. If you believe that the Clintons are pure as the wind-driven snow and have never spoken or acted crudely, then you are the result of the slanted media I have been talking about. There are some serious things on the line here–the Second Amendment and the First Amendment (including religious freedom) being two of them. Your vote counts.

Look! A Shiny Object!

Posted on by

The mainstream media is all abuzz about comments made by Donald Trump in 2005. The comments were horrible, but I suspect many who are totally shocked might, in the course of their lifetime, have heard similar comments. I also would be willing to make a small wager that in the next month, any time information comes out about Hillary’s emails, speeches, mistakes as Secretary of State, etc., we will see some sort of leaked audio of Donald Trump acting like a fraternity boy in a locker room. That’s how the media is working this campaign. The media cannot list Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as Secretary of State–the world was better off before she took office. The media cannot afford to delve too deeply into her husband’s term as President–he engaged in some pretty lewd behavior, and there are few indications that his behavior has changed. Hillary’s record as a Senator is not really impressive either.

There are two articles at Breitbart that might explain why the tape of Donald Trump showed up after eleven years. The first article includes the following:

One email, which provided partial transcripts of some of Clinton’s speeches, reads in part:

*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

In her remarks to Banco Itau, Clinton also denounced the idea of putting up barriers to global trade, a statement which will likely raise concerns with grassroots and working-class voters in her own party. “We have to resist protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade,” Clinton said.

Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, Breitbart News has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the Los Angeles Times observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.

The second article includes the following:

The batch of emails released by Wikileaks on October 7 includes one in which Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon explained that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.”

Fallon also highlighted Clinton’s support of universal background checks–which have already failed in California, Colorado, Washington state, and Paris–and her support for a scenario wherein victims of crime would be able to sue gun manufacturers.

First of all–there is no gun show loophole–you need a gun permit to buy a gun at a gun show. The idea that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show is an idea perpetrated by the press for the purpose of deceiving that part of the public that is uninformed about gun laws already in existence. What Hillary Clinton supports is a spied-upon public with no access to self-defense and an over reaching government. That is why the media is waving a shiny object in front of you–they are hoping you won’t notice what Hillary stands for or the actions of Bill Clinton vs. the words of Donald Trump.

I Am Sure This Is Just An Incredible Coincidence

Posted on by

Fox News posted a story yesterday about missing evidence in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The article reports:

Buried in the 189 pages of heavily redacted FBI witness interviews from the Hillary Clinton email investigation are details of yet another mystery — about two missing “bankers boxes” filled with the former secretary of state’s emails.

The interviews released earlier this month, known as 302s, also reveal the serious allegation that senior State Department official Patrick Kennedy applied pressure to subordinates to change the classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the public.

The details about the boxes are contained in five pages of the FBI file – with a staggering 111 redactions – that summarize the statements of a State Department witness who worked in the “Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS).” The employee told the FBI that, “Initially, IPS officials were told there were 14 bankers boxes of former Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON’s emails at CLINTON’s Friendship Heights office.” Friendship Heights is a neighborhood that straddles the Northwest neighborhood of the District of Columbia and Maryland.

The State Department witness further explained to the FBI that “on or about December 5, 2014, IPS personnel picked up only 12 bankers boxes of CLINTON’s emails from Williams & Connolly.”

The officials were not sure if the boxes “were consolidated or what could have happened to the two other boxes. “ 

The article goes on to report that the missing boxes cover the period from January-April 2009. The emails from this time are particularly critical because they cover the beginning of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and the time that she would have been setting up her private email server. Somehow all of those emails have disappeared.

The Gateway Pundit also posted an article about the missing emails yesterday.

The Gateway Pundit article concludes:

Destroyed and missing evidence, evidence tampering, cell phones destroyed with hammers, secret meetings on airplanes, etc., etc., etc.

How does our media react?

Look! Trump said something mean about a beauty queen 20 years ago!

I am willing to bet that voters who rely on the mainstream media for their news have no idea of the extent of the email scandal or the cover-up. Instead they are busy listening to 10-year old comments from Donald Trump. What about the words Hillary Clinton used in addressing her Secret Service detail? The hand that will be on the nuclear button is the same hand that is documented to have thrown a vase at Bill Clinton. Watch your news sources–we are in danger of majoring in the minors.

Your Vote Needs To Count–Not Be Cancelled Out By An Illegal Vote

Posted on by

Voter fraud is a problem. There are numerous stories from various sources about dead people being registered to vote, people being told they can fill out absentee ballots for other people, etc. I was told earlier in the year about buses of union workers brought into North Carolina and given names that they were to register to vote. On election day, people claiming to be those people would vote. It was total fraud. Unfortunately, that is a problem.

The Washington Examiner posted a story today about a different aspect of voter fraud.

The article reports:

His (Donald Trump) remark came during a conversation with Art Del Cueto, national vice president of NBPC, which represents more than 18,000 border patrol agents and personnel.

Del Cueto had reportedly told Trump that scores of border patrol agents had been advised not to deport criminal illegal immigrants and instead focus on “trying to get the people who are on the waiting list to hurry up and get them their immigration status corrected.”

“Why?” Trump asked, to which Del Cueto responded: “So they can go ahead and vote before the election.”

“Big statement, fellas,” Trump told reporters who were present for the meeting. “You’re not going to write it. That’s huge. They’re letting people pour into the country so they can go and vote.

I have seen enough stories about voter registration fraud from reputable sources that nothing surprises me. Let’s institute voter ID laws and solve the problem.

Rewriting History For Future Generations

Posted on by

Last month the new Smithsonian Museum celebrating black history opened. Unfortunately, the political slant involved in the museum does not give an accurate picture of black history nor does it provide a picture that promotes any sort of healing of race relations in America.

The Daily Caller noted in an October 3 article that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is barely mentioned in the museum. However, Anita Hill, who accused him of sexual harassment is given a place of prominence.

The article reports:

“I am not surprised that Justice Thomas’ inspiring life story is not a part of the new museum,” Mark Paoletta, an assistant White House Counsel in the George H. W. Bush administration who worked on the Thomas confirmation, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Civil rights leaders have tried for decades to malign Justice Thomas because he actually dares to have his own views on race issues. One prominent liberal Supreme Court practitioner has called Justice Thomas ‘our greatest Justice,’ but you would never know that listening to the civil rights leadership.”

The exclusion is especially odd given Thomas’ intimate experience with racial discrimination.

Thomas was born in Georgia’s coastal lowlands among impoverished Gullah-speakers. By his own account, he did not master the Queen’s English until his early 20s. He came of age in Jim Crow Savannah, where he was in turn ridiculed by white neighbors and classmates for his unpolished style, one of many indignities typical of his adolescence in the racist south. The startling racial injustices of his youth, by discipline and sheer force of will, gave way to the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. and Yale Law School.

It is a shame that young visitors to the museum will not be able to read his inspiring story. It is also a shame that a women who had no evidence for her charges against Justice Thomas and who followed him from job to job a number of times ( why would she do that if she were being sexually harassed?) is given a place of prominence. As I have said before, “I thought only communist countries rewrote history.”

It Might Be Time To Elect A President Who Is A Successful Businessman

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported:

The International Monetary Fund downgraded the economic growth outlook for the United States to 1.6 percent in 2016, which is the largest one-year drop seen for an advanced economy, according to the Fund’s World Economic Outlook report.

That does not sound like the wonderful economic growth Secretary Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama keep talking about.

The report states that the United States grew at a rate of 2.6 percent in 2015 and is projected to slow to 1.6 percent in 2016, a decline of 38 percent.

The article further reports:

Weaker-than-expected growth in the United States is one of the reasons why the International Monetary Fund cut its global growth projections. The group projected that global growth would slow to 3.1 percent in 2016 after growing 3.2 percent in 2015, citing the U.S. growth forecast as well as the Brexit vote.

“Economic growth in recent years has fallen short of expectations in both advanced and emerging market economies,” the report says. “As the world economy moves further away from the global financial crisis, the factors affecting global economic performance are becoming more complex. They reflect a combination of global forces—demographic trends, a persistent decline in productivity growth, the adjustment to lower commodity prices—and shocks driven by domestic and regional factors.”

Let’s look at how government policy can impact economic growth. The first problem is over-regulation. That is a problem in all industries, but in particular in the energy sector. How many coal mines, coal companies, or coal-powered electric plants has the Obama Administration put out of business? What happens to the cost of electricity for the average family as cheaper methods of generating electricity are shut down? As the cost of electricity rises, how does that impact the disposable income of Americans and the willingness of companies to do business here. Let’s also look at the healthcare industry. ObamaCare is dying a slow, painful death. Insurance premiums for some Americans are rising rapidly, and the government is fining other Americans who can’t afford health insurance. Meanwhile, some of the reimbursement rates are so low, some doctors are refusing certain patients.

What impact has the Obama Administration had on the cost of doing business in America? Will those policies change under Hillary Clinton? This may be an ‘if you like your job, you can keep it’ moment in America. Your vote may actually determine whether or not you are gainfully employed after January.

Look Where Our Taxpayer Money Went!

Posted on by

Remember TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program)? That was the program that was going to stop the recession and make sure unemployment stayed manageable. It did neither and eventually resulted in $426.4 billion of taxpayer money being invested to ‘purchase troubled assets.’

Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday featuring some information posted by Guccifer2 that he has acquired through his computer hacking. Regardless of how you feel about computer hacking, this is information that should be available to the American public:

tarppaymentsThe third column in this chart is donations that companies who received TARP money made to various candidates and party committees. I really think we need a law that says any company or entity that receives government money should not be able to make campaign contributions. The amount of money spent on TARP should have been given to American taxpayers. I suspect that would have done a much better job of stimulating the economy.

Facts Are Very Inconvenient Things

Posted on by

There is a saying, “Truth is the first casualty of war.” I would like to add to that, “Truth is the first casualty of political campaigns.”

Breitbart posted an article yesterday dealing with how Tim Kaine has treated Israel in the past. Tim Kaine was one of the leaders in the boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s speech to Congress in March 2015.

The article reports:

Kaine claimed to be proud of the boycott at the time. “I’m not dumb, I knew not going to the speech might make some folks mad with me – there would be a political price, but I felt so strongly as a matter of principle that this was done in an entirely inappropriate way,” he told Forward, denouncing Netanyahu’s speech as “done purely to try and influence the Israeli elections and demonstrate American support for one person and one party.”

Kaine was particularly incensed by Netanyahu’s criticism of the Iran nuclear deal – the same deal he now claims Israel supports.

“Kaine worked behind the scenes to try to delay the speech, but when that failed, was among the first Democratic senators to announce that they would not attend the address,” the Times of Israel reported in July.

As a senator, Tim Kaine was certainly entitled to take any stands on any issue he chose to speak out on, but as voters, we are certainly entitled to examine those issues. Israel has been America’s best ally in the Middle East. It is the only place in the Middle East that is a democracy with freedom of worship for all religions. In the future, it will be the only thing standing between America and a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton is not a supporter of Israel. No one who supports Israel would have signed the Iranian nuclear deal. There are also other indications that Hillary Clinton as President will not support Israel. Huma Abedin has strong family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood–she is not a supporter of Israel and will probably be Hillary’s Chief of Staff. It is a reasonably safe bet that the Democratic Party presidential ticket will not support Israel.

Politicians Don’t Like Being Held Accountable

Posted on by

Generally speaking, politicians don’t like being held accountable. They don’t like being held to any standard of transparency either. This has been particularly true in the relationship between the Obama Administration and Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch is an equal opportunity government watchdog organization. The have investigated the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the Obama Administration.

Needless to say, they were more appreciated by Americans who wanted to hold their government accountable than they were by the administrations they were holding accountable. The Obama Administration, however, has reached a new low in its dealings with Judicial Watch.

On Thursday, The Washington Times reported that an Inspector General‘s report revealed the following:

Political operatives within the Obama administration wrongly punished conservative legal group Judicial Watch, stripping it of “media” status and trying to force it to pay higher fees for its open records requests, the General Services Administration inspector general said in a letter released Thursday.

The GSA botched several high-profile open records requests, delaying them for months while political appointees got involved, Inspector General Carol F. Ochoa said. The findings were released while the administration was facing charges of slow-walking open records requests for Hillary Clinton’s emails, as well as other requests.

In the case of Judicial Watch, the order to strip it of media status came from political operatives with long ties to Democratic causes — and even from the White House.

The inspector general said the decision came at the behest of Gregory Mecher, a former Democratic campaign fundraiser who at the time was liaison to the White House. He is married to Jen Psaki, a longtime spokeswoman with the Obama administration and its election campaigns.

 Ms. Ochoa said stripping Judicial Watch of media status violated several agency policies and things got worse when the GSA denied an appeal by the group.

The same person who ruled on the initial request also ruled on the appeal, “contrary to GSA procedures,” the inspector general said.

Judicial Watch ended up suing over the request, the agency finally agreed to waive all fees and even ended up paying Judicial Watch $750 as part of the settlement.

This is disgusting. We have entered a period of unbelievable corruption in Washington that reaches all the way to the top. We have had stories this year of archives of press conferences being altered after the fact to make the administration look better, now we have press credentials pulled on people simply doing a service to America.

Please follow the link and read the entire article. It is a basic course of the relationships among the elites in Washington. It truly is time to throw them all out!

Why This Story Keeps Coming Back

Posted on by

Even during a political campaign, most stories have a limited life-span. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case with Hillary Clinton’s emails and private server. Clinton supporters see this as just another unwarranted attack on this innocent person, but unfortunately the facts that are slowly leaking out tell a very different story.

Townhall posted a story tonight stating that the FBI made a side deal with some of the witnesses in the email investigation to destroy their laptop computers. That seems odd to say the least. Usually evidence in an investigation is not destroyed very quickly.

The article at Townhall points out some irregularities in the investigation:

This was just your average FBI investigation, you see, in which the same woman was: (1) a subject of the probe, (2) a key witness in the probe, (3) a dubious immunity recipient, and (4) a lawyer to the primary subject — who was allowed to sit in on her quasi-client’s interview with investigators. And if that wasn’t enough, the FBI reportedly agreed to permanently destroy two pieces of evidence after reviewing them. I’ll defer to law enforcement experts as to whether or not this sort of thing is remotely standard practice, but to a layperson, it seems like yet another peculiarity surrounding this case.

On Saturday, Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review with his comments on the investigation. Please follow the link above to read the entire article–it details some of the technicalities in the investigation that were obviously mishandled.

The article points out:

Second, though Comey says the FBI is in no position to enforce attorney ethical rules that barred Mills from representing Clinton at the interview, this was not just an FBI interview. According to the director, several Justice Department lawyers also participated. Those lawyers, too, are bound by the ethical rules. They had an obligation to object to this unseemly arrangement and to do what was in their considerable power to prevent it.
Finally, as Shannen Coffin has pointed out, Mills was not just violating an ethical rule. Her representation of Clinton runs afoul of federal law. Section 207 of the penal code makes it a crime for a former government official to attempt to influence the government on behalf of another person in a matter in which the former official was heavily involved while working for the government. It was against the law for Mills, as an attorney, to attempt to influence the Justice Department’s consideration of the case against Clinton.
The reason this scandal will not go away is that the investigation has been compromised at every turn. We don’t have a “Watergate” media that is willing to report on the obstructionism and lying that has been going on both by Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration. There are still a few Americans left who believe in the integrity of the FBI and want to know why that integrity was seemingly compromised.

 

Who Will Vote In November?

Posted on by

Yesterday Lifezette posted an article about voters in Virginia. The Virginia Voters Alliance has released a report based on findings from the Public Interest Legal Foundation. The report shows that more than 1,000 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, have been free to vote illegally in Virginia.

The article reports:

The 1,046 Virginia voters may just be the tip of the iceberg, as it’s only the number found in eight Virginia localities, the report reads. The report found that the most illegal votes were cast in 2012, followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term. In both years, Obama won Virginia.

It’s a felony for non-citizens to vote in Virginia. But in Virginia, no proof of citizenship is required when voters register.

…The Virginia Voters Alliance looked into the issue first with Alexandria, Virginia. The alliance noticed that the Northern Virginia city had more people registered to vote than eligible voters who lived there.

…”The problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities,” the report reads. “Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony.”

It’s time we started prosecuting people who vote illegally. I suspect that would at least slow down the number of illegal votes fairly quickly. This is another example of why we need voter identification and proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Coming To A City Near You

Posted on by

We all understand that with the exception of giving Americans the right to sue terrorist-sponsoring countries, Congress has not stood up to President Obama. This week America gave up oversight of the Internet, and Congress failed to stop it. The other examples of Congress not representing the people who elected them are endless. That is the reason that what I am about to post concerns me. I believe that during the last three months on his administration, President Obama will take extreme liberties with his office and Congress will not stop him.

Today The Washington Free Beacon is reporting the following:

The Obama administration secretly used taxpayer money to fund an official inspection of several U.S. cities as possible locations to move terrorist inmates held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in violation of federal law, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The Obama administration ordered the Pentagon to spend U.S. taxpayer funds for a domestic search of “possible Guantanamo detainee relocation” sites, according to documents obtained by the Free Beacon. United States law bars the administration from spending taxpayer money on its effort to move Gitmo inmates onto American soil.

The disclosure has prompted a congressional inquiry to determine who in the Obama administration ordered the relocation search and how taxpayer funds were authorized for that purpose, according to a formal letter sent by lawmakers to the Defense Department on Monday and obtained by the Free Beacon.

The disclosure of this activity by the Obama administration has renewed concerns on Capitol Hill that the White House will make a last-minute effort to shutter the Gitmo prison and ship the remaining inmates to the United States, despite laws prohibiting the transfers.

I would like to remind you why the terrorist prisoners were held at Guantanamo. Escaping from Guantanamo would be a losing proposition. Even if you managed to get out of the prison enclosure and out the main gate, there would be no guarantee that you would be treated well by the Castro family. Also, Guantanamo is not within the continental United States, and it is questionable what civil rights the detainees have. As soon as you move the terrorist prisoners to the continental United States you immediately open up the possibility of escape and the question of civil rights. You also open up the possibility of a hostage situation in the area of the prison in order to get the prisoners released. I would like to remind you of what happened in Beslan, North Ossetia (a northern area of the Russian federation) in September 2004. Terrorists took over an elementary school and held the school for three days. In the end 330 hostages were killed, including 186 children. The siege ended when Russian security forces stormed the building.

The prisoners at Guantanamo are there because they are non-combatants captured on the battlefield or in raids of terrorist cells. They are terrorists. They are not bound by or protected by the rules of the Geneva Convention. Their past actions demonstrate little concern for civilians in the areas they target. Unfortunately, with the recent influx of unvetted immigrants from the Middle East, the prisoners moved here from Guantanamo would have a lot of friends already in America. The opportunity for mischief and the danger to American citizens would increase dramatically.

The article further reports:

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt informed lawmakers in a letter late last month that he had discovered documentation showing the Obama administration spent more than $25,000 to scout potential relocation sites in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Charleston, South Carolina, and Florence, Colorado.

Schmidt obtained this information from the Pentagon only after threatening to sue the administration for its refusal to produce documentation on the matter.

“While the amount of money is relatively small—a total of$25,909.53, of which $7,687.20 was spent on the site survey for Fort Leavenworth—the admission raises the concern that the Department of Defense violated the law by knowingly expending these funds while federal law enacted by Congress expressly prohibited the agency from doing so,” Schmidt informed lawmakers in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Beacon.

The administration’s behavior has raised concerns in Congress that it is secretly planning to relocate detainees to United States cities without informing local officials and residents.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kansas) told the Free Beacon that Americans should not have the most “hardened terrorists” secretly transferred to their towns by the Obama administration.

…Guantanamo Bay inmates who have been released continue to reengage in terrorism. At least two former inmates have participated in terror operations against U.S. forces since January.

The Obama administration continues to pursue an aggressive effort to free as many inmates as possible before leaving office.

Let’s hope Congress has the backbone to stand up to President Obama on this issue.

Borders Matter

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about the crimes committed by immigrants legally and illegally entering America with nefarious intentions.

The article reports:

In the month of September alone, a Turkish immigrant allegedly shot and killed five people in a Washington State mall; an Afghan immigrant allegedly planted bombs in New York and New Jersey injuring roughly 30 innocent people; a Somali immigrant allegedly stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall; a twice-arrested illegal alien with a prior DUI conviction allegedly murdered a Kansas sheriff’s deputy; an illegal alien and convicted child rapist allegedly shot two California corrections officers; an illegal alien with a prior drug arrest, who had been a recipient of Obama’s executive amnesty, allegedly engaged in reckless driving killing a 12-year-old girl; a three-time deported illegal alien allegedly killed two people on what was described as a crime “rampage;” and a Mexican immigrant and Arizona pastor was arrested after it was revealed that he had allegedly molested children for years, many of whom are believed to belong to his church, and for impregnating one of his victims when she was 13 years old.

At the same time, a Department of Homeland Security audit revealed that over 1,800 foreign nationals who were slated to be deported were instead awarded U.S. citizenship.

In football, when you see an extremely long running or pass play, you can usually assume that someone on the defense missed his assignment. I think it is safe to say that somewhere in our immigration process, someone (or someones) has missed his assignment.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The people who are in charge of our safety are not doing their job. They are either incompetent or have intentionally closed their eyes to the threat. Either way, they have missed their assignment.

We Need To Protect Free Speech

Posted on by

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.

Breaking The Law To Help Your Candidate

Posted on by

The Daily Caller is reporting today that The New York Times has published a story that includes some of Donald Trump’s income tax records. The records were illegally obtained. The records show no indication of illegal behavior, but reveal a serious business loss in the mid-1990’s. Evidently The New York Times thinks a twenty-year old story is important.

The article reports:

“The pages were mailed last month to Susanne Craig, a reporter at The Times who has written about Mr. Trump’s finances,” the paper explained in the story. “The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return.”

The newspaper wrote in its story that Marc E. Kasowitz threatened “prompt initiation of appropriate legal action” against the Times if they published the records because Trump did not give permission for the records to be disclosed.

The takeaway from the Times’ story is that Trump “declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.”

Note that the article says “could have allowed.” There is no proof of what he paid after 1995.

This is the kind of sleaze that the Hillary Clinton campaign is known for. It is sad that The New York Times chose to be part of it.

 

President Obama Is On The Wrong Side Of History (Again)

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about a revision made to the transcript of President Obama’s recent speech in Israel.

The article reports:

The Obama administration stripped Jerusalem from being located in Israel in its official communication of the president’s remarks in the ancient city at a memorial service for recently deceased former Israeli president Shimon Peres.

The White House, in a press release, originally sent out a press release attributing Obama’s remarks as taking place in “Jerusalem, Israel.”

Shortly after that statement was sent, the White House reissued the statement with “Israel” crossed out as the location.

..One senior congressional aide who works on Middle East issues told the Free Beacon that the White House’s actions are offensive and out of line, particularly in light of Peres’ recent death.

“For the White House proactively reject Jerusalem as the capital of Israel after President Obama’s remarks memorializing one of the state’s founders is beyond insulting,” the source said. “This administration never misses an opportunity to manufacturer conflicts at Israel’s expense, but doing so just hours after burying Shimon Peres goes beyond the pale. It even raises questions as to whether the White House deliberately sent out this correction to make a political statement. I seriously hope that’s not that case.”

This is the equivalent of another country telling us that Washington, D.C. is not our capital. It is just ludicrous. This is not how an American President should treat our allies.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It has been the capital of Israel since the time of King David. The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the city. The only time they actually controlled any of it was after the 1948 cease-fire. Boundaries were not set at that time–it was a cease-fire. This is another example of President Obama insulting Israel and sending the wrong signal to the Arab countries surrounding Israel that are determined to drive the Israelis into the sea.