Monthly Archives: September 2017
Remembering 911
This was originally posted on September 11, 2009
This is a picture of the Teardrop Memorial, Russia’s gift to the United States in memory of 911. The monument To the Struggle Against World Terrorism was dedicated on September 11, 2006, by President Clinton. It is located in Bayonne, New Jersey, at a place where the twin towers were visible.
To read the entire story of the monument and how it came to rest there, please follow the link to 911monument.com. The website tells the story of what inspired the monument and how it came to be. This is another picture of the monument. I stumbled on this monument in an article at the American Thinker.
Letting Children Go Through Stages As Children
On Friday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about a twelve-year-old boy who changed his mind about transitioning to a girl.
The article reports:
As a young child, Patrick Mitchell had always wanted to be a girl, the Independent reported. “You wish you could just change everything about you, you just see any girl and you say, ‘I’d kill to be like that,'” Mitchell told interviewers.
After speaking with doctors, Mitchell was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and began taking estrogen hormones in anticipation of a full transition. Mitchell grew out his hair and the treatment caused the prepubescent boy to grow a pair of breasts.
When teachers began to call him a girl in class, however, Mitchell began to question if he made the correct decision. “I began to realize I was actually comfortable in my body. Every day I just felt better,” he said.
Mitchell’s mother recounted his change of heart.
“He looked me in the eye and said, ‘I’m just not sure that I am a girl,'” she told “60 Minutes.” Mitchell has since stopped taking his estrogen treatment and plans to have surgery to remove the breast tissue.
Children go through stages when they identify with either parent as a role model. They pass through these stages and go on to the next stage (if they are allowed to do so). In my opinion it borders on child abuse to begin a sex change on any person under 21.
The article concludes:
Some studies have indicated that at least a portion of children who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria ultimately embrace the sex they were assigned at birth, New York Magazine reported. One study conducted by the Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria at VU University Medical Center, a famous gender clinic in Amsterdam, found that around two-thirds of gender dysphoric minors eventually desisted. That is, the minors ultimately reverted to identify with the gender corresponding with their birth sex. Another study, conducted in conjunction with Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), found 88 percent of male minors ultimately desisted.
Trans activists strongly dispute those studies, arguing that they are “built upon bad statistics, bad science, homophobia, and transphobia,” HuffPost reported.
Fifteen Years Later (Originally posted September 10, 2016)
This article was originally posted on September 10, 2016. Has anything changed?
This is the fifteenth anniversary of the day before 9/11. It is the anniversary of a day when Americans were going about their business—getting children ready to start school, beginning to put away summer clothes and get out fall clothes, and doing fall housekeeping. It was not in any way a noteworthy day. However, there were Americans who understood the threat hanging over us. Unfortunately, those Americans did not have the ability to wake up either our government or the American people.
John O’Neill was one of the people who understood the threat. In 1995 John O’Neill was appointed chief of the FBI’s counterterrorism section. When he arrived at FBI headquarters initially, he stayed there for three days. O’Neill was not very diplomatic, but he got things done. He also had the ability to tie loose ends together to see what was coming. Early on in his career, O’Neill became very interested in the activities of Osama Bin Laden to the point where his colleagues began to question his judgement [The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright Page 237 (paperback)]. He retired from the FBI early in 2001 to become chief of security at the World Trade Center. I have heard stories of the evacuation drills he led at the World Trade Center that probably saved many people’s lives on 9/11. John O’Neill understood that the terrorists would try to destroy the World Trade Center again. He was right. Unfortunately, due to personalities in the FBI, he was no longer in a position to connect the dots and possibly avoid the attack on the Trade Center.
So where are we today? What have we learned and what have we done about it? One of the best sources on the failure of the Obama Administration to deal with terrorism is the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. In that book, Mr. Coughlin details the Obama Administrations inability to understand the root of the threat; and therefore, its inability to counter the threat. I strongly suggest you read the book, but I will try to summarize the main points here.
In October 2011, elements of the American Muslim Brotherhood wrote the White House demanding an embargo or discontinuation of information and materials relating to Islamic-based terrorism. The letter was addressed to John Brennan, who at the time was Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Days later John Brennan agreed to create a task force to address the problem by removing personnel and products that the Muslim Brotherhood deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.” This move in effect allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to control the information given to the people charged with stopping the terrorism initiated by groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. At this point, the 9/11 reports and other actual historic documents were altered to make them compliant with the new paradigm. (I thought only the Russians rewrote history.)
Just a note—Stephen Coughlin is no longer briefing the Pentagon and our law enforcement communities. His briefings were not in compliance with the standards the Muslim Brotherhood placed on such briefings and were no longer permitted. That fact along should give all of us pause.
There are some real questions as to whom President Obama listens to on matters of terrorism. Those same questions apply to Hillary Clinton. Would you have put someone with family ties to Hitler in an advisory role to Franklin Roosevelt during World War II? I realize you can’t choose your family, but would the FBI hire a secretary whose father was a Mafia Don to work in their domestic crime bureau?
There is substantial evidence that the upper levels of our government have been compromised by the Muslim Brotherhood. One of the most reliable sources for this information is The Center for Security Policy. There are many resources available on their website.
So as we look back on this time fifteen years ago, we need to realize that we are still in danger and that the danger we face is getting more serious. The attacks in Europe (reported and unreported) should awaken us to the dangers of allowing refugees into America without proper vetting and the dangers of allowing immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into American culture to set up enclaves within our country.
Unless we want to experience a terror attack far worse than 9/11, Americans need to inform themselves about the enemy we are facing. It is obvious that the government is not going to inform us or take care of us.
Free Speech In Danger In America
On Friday, The Washington Examiner reported on efforts by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission to limit political speech on the internet. The latest effort by these Democrats was triggered by the fact that unnamed Russians spent $100,000 for politically themed ads on Facebook. Somehow no Democrats on any committees were concerned when Saudi Arabia was funding anti-fracking movies.
The article reports:
Weintraub (Commissioner Ellen Weintraub) also demanded that the FEC address the issue of “internet political communications” at its next meeting on Sept. 14.
Facebook’s involvement and proof of Russian spending on political ads could give Democratic FEC critics of the freewheeling Internet the case they’ve needed.
Republicans on the FEC have claimed for years that the Democrats have been focused on the Internet in part because they want to silence conservative outlets like the Drudge Report, conservative videos, and even movies.
But the Facebook revelation and huge amount of money involved should give the Democrats a new weapon in their fight to regulate spending on Internet sites beyond paid advocacy. Under current rules, paid online ads that say, for example, “Vote For” or “Vote Against,” are regulated. The so-called Internet freedom rule, however, exempts free Internet posts and advocacy by third parties.
This sort of government intervention into free speech never ends well. I have no problem with anyone posting anything on Facebook as long as the source of the post is obvious. Where were these people when conservative groups were being denied tax-exempt status? This is a political move partially caused by the fact that Democratic election and fund-raising efforts are not going well. This is an attempt to slant the playing field to the Democrats advantage. It needs to be stopped.
Immigration In Britain
Breitbart is reporting today on the impact immigration policies have had on the population of Britain.
The article reports:
A report by think tank Civitas says that the population of the United Kingdom is growing at a rate of more than 500,000 a year – the equivalent of a new town of about 10,000 people being created every week.
The article further notes that one in three babies born in Britain and Wales had at least one foreign parent.
So what caused this?
The article explains:
Blair (former prime minister Tony Blair) has been accused of presiding over a “silent conspiracy” to flood the UK with migrants whilst he was prime minster, ordering his ministers to not discuss the subject in public, with his government working to force the country to “see the benefit of a multicultural society”.
The Civitas report identifies EU enlargement, “with the admission of the countries of Eastern Europe”, as the second reason for population growth trends to change so rapidly.
Again, the arch-europhile’s New Labour government decided not to implement transitional immigration controls like the majority of other EU countries, with Blair admitting in 2017 that he had no idea how many people would migrate to Britain when the bloc expanded to include former Communist nations such as Poland.
Government policies have consequences. Britain is clearly in danger of losing its identity as a nation.
Is The Department Of Justice Just?
The following statement was posted at Judicial Watch yesterday:
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the Department of Justice’s decision not to bring charges against Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, whose own emails place her at the heart of the politicization of the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups:
I have zero confidence that the Justice Department did an adequate review of the IRS scandal. In fact, we’re still fighting the Justice Department and the IRS for records about this very scandal. Today’s decision comes as no surprise considering that the FBI collaborated with the IRS and is unlikely to investigate or prosecute itself. President Trump should order a complete review of the whole issue. Meanwhile, we await accountability for IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who still serves and should be drummed out of office.
Judicial Watch released 294 pages of FBI “302” documents revealing top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public. An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.
The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The new documents reveal that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response: “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.”
Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to say that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing and later declare to the court that the emails were on IRS back-up systems. Lerner was one of the top officials responsible for the IRS’ targeting of President Obama’s political opponents. Judicial Watch exposed various IRS record keeping problems:
- In June 2014, the IRS claimed to have “lost” responsive emails belonging to Lerner and other IRS officials.
- In July 2014 Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered the IRS to submit to the court a written declaration under oath about what happened to Lerner’s “lost” emails. The sworn declarations proved to be less than forthcoming.
- In August 2014, Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS finally admitted Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The IRS’ attorneys also disclosed that Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was looking at several of these backup tapes.
- In November 2014, the IRS told the court it had failed to search any of the IRS standard computer systems for the “missing” emails of Lerner and other IRS officials.
- On February 26, 2015, TIGTA officials testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it had received 744 backup tapes containing emails sent and received by Lerner. This testimony showed that the IRS had falsely represented to both Congress, Judge Sullivan, and Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails were irretrievably lost. The testimony also revealed that IRS officials responsible for responding to the document requests never asked for the backup tapes and that 424 backup tapes containing Lerner’s emails had been destroyed during the pendency of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and Congressional investigations.
- In June 2015, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to admit in a court filing that it was in possession of 6,400 “newly discovered” Lerner emails. Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the IRS to provide answers on the status of the Lerner emails the IRS had previously declared lost. Judicial Watch raised questions about the IRS’ handling of the missing emails issue in a court filing, demanding answers about Lerner’s emails that had been recovered from the backup tapes.
- In July 2015, U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan threatened to hold John Koskinen, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and recovered Lerner emails, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.
Obama IRS Commissioner Koskinen was nearly impeached in September 2016 for misleading Congress on Lerner’s emails.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) clearly violated the free speech rights of American citizens because the Obama Administration wanted to silence their views. This is a serious affront to our representative republic and should not go unpunished. Attempting to use the IRS for political purposes was one of the items of impeachment drawn up against President Richard Nixon. Has the Justice Department forgotten what the law is? If so, it is time for a new Justice Department.
Leading By Example
This is the list of where President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump‘s $1 million dollar donation for victims of Hurricane Harvey is going:
- Reach Out America, $100,000
- Red Cross, $300,000
- Salvation Army, $300,000
- Samaritan’s Purse, $100,000
- ASPCA, $25,000
- Catholic Charities, $25,000
- Direct Relief, $25,000
- Habitat for Humanity, $25,000
- Houston Humane Society, $25,000
- Operation Blessing, $25,000
- Portlight Inclusive Disaster Strategies, $25,000
- Team Rubicon, $25,000
The list is posted at the El Paso Times.
Has The Senate Read The Constitution?
Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:
…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
This is a YouTube video of Diane Feinstein questioning appeals court nominee Amy Barrett during Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearing:
This line of questioning is unconstitutional and inappropriate. This is a religious litmus test. This is not anything new. During the 1960’s, there was a lot of reporting about the fact that John Kennedy was Catholic when he was running for President. He was elected in spite of that. We need to remember that the roots of our judicial system are Judeo-Christian. The people who founded and supported this nation in the early days of the republic were Christians and Jews. In the early days of America, weekly church services were held in the Capitol building.
The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
Questioning a judicial nominee on her religious beliefs is totally inappropriate and not in alignment with the founding documents of America.
Leadership Matters
Yesterday The City Journal posted an article which contained the following statement from New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio:
the “way our legal system is structured to favor private property” provokes his “anger, which is visceral.” The mayor elaborated on this point, insisting that “people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.”
Wow. Private property is one of the foundations of our Representative Republic.
In December 2010, I posted an article showing the relationship between private property ownership and the lack of poverty in a country. The article was based on a Townhall article by John Stossel.
The article stated:
”To get an address, somebody’s got to recognize that that’s where you live. That means … you’ve a got mailing address. … When you make a deal with someone, you can be identified. But until property is defined by law, people can’t … specialize and create wealth. The day they get title (is) the day that the businesses in their homes, the sewing machines, the cotton gins, the car repair shop finally gets recognized. They can start expanding.”
“That’s the road to prosperity. But first they need to be recognized by someone in local authority who says, “This is yours.” They need the rule of law. But many places in the developing world barely have law. So enterprising people take a risk. They work a deal with the guy on the first floor, and they build their house on the second floor.”
What Mayor DeBlasio is suggesting is communism or socialism. Historically, neither has been proven to work.
The article in The City Journal concludes:
De Blasio insists that New Yorkers fervently want to have a powerful government that gets involved in the minutest details of how they organize their lives. Based on their voting behavior, he may be right. But New Yorkers are also obstreperous, entrepreneurial, and small-d democratic; they typically reserve a Bronx cheer for authorities who dare to tell them what to do. De Blasio has now come out explicitly as a central planner whose politics sound frankly Bolshevik. We’ve been warned.
Benjamin Franklin replied when asked what the Constitutional Convention had created, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” Obviously, not everyone wants to keep it.
Let’s Look At Some Facts
While everyone in Washington is screaming that DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) should be repealed, let’s look at some of the facts about President Obama‘s Executive Order that began the program.
From YouTube:
When DACA was originally enacted, Paul Ryan and other Republicans agreed that it was an illegal executive overreach. They criticized it frequently. Now they are criticizing President Trump for ending it.
Red State has a very logical explanation for this change of heart:
The reason for the inaction is pretty banal. If Ryan convinces Trump to leave DACA intact, he gets his caucus through 2018 without having to cast a vote to either grant “amnesty” so some 800,000 illegals or to okay the deportation of some 800,000 people who are pretty much American in outlook. If Trump pulls the plug on DACA, then Ryan has to decide which hurts his caucus more: acting or not acting. Neither of those options is going to sell all that well.
What Ryan said is utter gibberish. Congress has uncontested power to regulate immigration and naturalization. The President is charged with faithfully executing the laws. DACA is a violation of that charge. Congress is part of the solution; in fact, Congress is the whole solution. Unfortunately, Paul Ryan wants Congress to continue being part of the problem and he wants cover from Trump to do it.
Congress has lost the ability to do anything but worry about its own re-election. We should take that worry away from them by voting them out of office.
Meanwhile, Breitbart posted an article yesterday about some of the people DACA has allowed to remain in America.
The article includes the following:
Below, Breitbart News has compiled a list of 50 of the 2,139 DACA recipients, deemed “DREAMers” by the open borders lobby, who have had their temporary protected status revoked due to crimes including: “A felony criminal conviction; a significant misdemeanor conviction; multiple misdemeanor convictions; gang affiliation; or arrest of any crime in which there is deemed to be a public safety concern,” according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency.
The majority of crimes by DACA recipients include: “Alien smuggling, assaultive offenses, domestic violence, drug offenses, DUI, larceny and thefts, criminal trespass and burglary, sexual offenses with minors, other sex offenses and weapons offenses,” USCIS has stated.
Do we really want these people in our country?
The adults who were brought here as children are a unique problem, but DACA is not the correct answer. Congress should actually do something constructive. The best way to handle this would be to begin to document who the ‘dreamers’ are and begin a path to citizenship for those who are actually contributing to the welfare of America. It would also be necessary to end ‘chain migration’ for the dreamers. I would allow those people brought here as children to stay, but I would prohibit them from receiving government benefits and from bringing their relatives here. Any dreamer convicted of a crime should be sent back to their home country, regardless of whether or not they have a relationship with that country. If you won’t respect our laws, you can’t stay here.
The dreamers are already here.–you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube, but America should not have to support them. They need to find a way to support themselves.
Good News
As google, facebook, and twitter censor conservative speech, it is going to be more difficult to find alternative sources of news. A website called ‘government slaves‘ has made a list of 400 sites google does not want you to visit. Rightwinggranny.com has made that list. That is something of a mixed blessing–it is an honor to be recognized as an alternative news site, but chilling that any news site is being blocked because of their perspective. At any rate, it is a good idea to bookmark ‘government slaves‘ for future reference. I am sure the list will be updated as time goes on, and the websites on it are good alternative news sources.
It All Comes Down To Perspective
Yesterday The U.K. Independent posted a story about some changes to British law that occurred this year.
The headline of the story is, “While you celebrate the third royal baby, remember all of the women in Britain who aren’t allowed a third child.” First of all, the headline is totally misleading–there is no law prohibiting a third child.
The article reports:
In April this year the Government reformed child tax credits, introducing what is commonly referred to as the “rape clause”. From now on, a woman will be unable to claim tax credits for any child after her first two unless she can demonstrate conception occurred “as a result of a sexual act which [she] didn’t or couldn’t consent to” or “at a time when [she was] in an abusive relationship, under ongoing control or coercion by the other parent of the child”. To claim this exemption, she must complete an eight-page “rape assessment” form, countersigned by a third party professional to whom she must disclose her assault. Continuing to live with the father of her child will render her ineligible for support.
So what the law actually does is say that there will be no tax credits for the third child unless extraordinary circumstances are involved–not that a person cannot have a third child. One wonders if the tax credit is significant enough to make a difference. In America, we get a tax deduction for each child, but that deduction in no way even approaches the cost of feeding, clothing, and housing that child for a year.
There is another interesting aspect of this law. In recent years, Britain has taken in a large number of Muslim refugees and immigrants who tend to have large families. One wonders what impact this law will have on the Muslim population. Does the two-child rule apply to each wife or to every wife of a Muslim man? Is polygamy now legal in Britain since they now have Sharia courts? These are also questions that may apply to this law?
In 2015, The Guardian reported:
The Muslim population of England and Wales is growing faster than the overall population, with a higher proportion of children and a lower ratio of elderly people, according to an analysis of official data.
One in three Muslims is under 15, compared with fewer than one in five overall. There are also fewer elderly Muslims, with 4% aged over 65, compared with 16% of the overall population.
In 2011, 2.71 million Muslims lived in England and Wales, compared with 1.55 million in 2001. There were also 77,000 Muslims in Scotland and 3,800 in Northern Ireland.
The Muslim Council of Britain’s (MCB) study of data from the 2011 census found that Muslims are still a small minority of the overall population – one in 20. This contrasts with popular perceptions held by Britons, who overstate the proportion of Muslims in the country by a factor of four, according to a recent survey by Ipsos Mori.
In September 2016, the U.K. Mail reported:
Mohammed is the most popular name for boys in England and Wales- but it doesn’t top the official list because there are so many different ways to spell it.
There were 7,361 children born last year called Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohammad or Mohamed, according to the Office for National Statistics, which would have made it the number one boys name if the variations were taken into account.
Demographics can change very quickly. I wonder if this law is an attempt to slow down that change.
What Needs To Be Done
Congress has had a rather lackluster session so far this year. They failed to repeal ObamaCare and generally have not done anything to help the economy or the American people come out of the recession. Any economic growth has been the result of undoing regulations. That has been done by President Trump without the help of Congress. Now, as Congress comes back from their recess, it would be very nice to see them actually accomplish something. However, that is definitely wishful thinking, considering Congressional leaders and their agendas. The thing to remember here is that even though Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have R’s after their name, they are not Republicans who believe in the Republican platform. They are Washington establishment types who believe in big government, expanding budgets, and expanding control over the lives of ordinary Americans. They have no intention of ever having to live under the laws they passed (they made sure they exempted themselves from any changes due to the repeal of ObamaCare before they discussed repeal). Keep in mind that the biggest nightmare of the Washington establishment is a successful Trump presidency. That is one of the reasons President Trump is so viciously attacked in the mainstream media.
One of the big items on the agenda for Congress this fall is tax reform. Our current tax system is a tribute to the efforts of lobbyists. Unfortunately, many of our political leaders are in the pockets a those lobbyists, so I am not optimistic that anything meaningful will be accomplished (other than possibly convincing Americans to vote these leaders out of office).
The Daily Signal posted an article today listing some of the problems with our current tax code. The current tax code is outdated, unfair, overly complicated, and an indication of the corruption that has crept into our government over the years.
The article lists some of the major areas where change is needed:
Problem 1: Our Tax Code Is Not Pro-Growth
Our current tax code suppresses business creation, expansion, and reinvestment thanks to high tax rates. The U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world, which makes it difficult for American businesses to compete with their foreign counterparts.
America’s tax code puts companies at a disadvantage by failing to allow full expensing, or the ability to allow all businesses to deduct the full cost of new capital investments such as a building, machinery, technology, etc., necessary for business creation and growth.
It also taxes companies on the profits they earn overseas, discouraging foreign investment here in the U.S. to the tune of $2.6 trillion.
Finally, the tax code punishes saving and investment through double or even triple taxation, hurting small businesses and families looking to grow their personal wealth.
The tax code needs to be changed to encourage the growth of entrepreneurship and small business.
The article lists the second problem:
Problem 2: Our Tax Code Is Too Complex
When it started in 1913, the tax code was 400 pages long. By 2013 it was over 74,000 pages.
Americans spend 9 billion hours complying with the tax code every year, which costs them over $400 billion in lost economic productivity every year. It’s critical that we don’t just cut the tax rate, but that we work to simplify it as well.
More and more tax professionals are specializing in a small segment of the tax code, such as estate tax or small business taxes or companies with large assets that depreciate.
Four hundred pages was too long, seventy-four thousand is ridiculous.
Problem number three:
Problem 3: Our Tax Code Is Full of Corporate Favoritism
Well-connected people and businesses routinely game the tax system, precisely because it’s designed that way. This leaves the majority of hard-working taxpayers at a disadvantage.
For example, Nevada agreed to give Elon Musk’s Tesla $1.3 billion in tax incentives in exchange for them building a lithium battery production plant in the state.
Timothy Carney points out that other producers of batteries were experimenting with other types of battery power, but when they found about the special interest subsidy given to lithium batteries, they abandoned their testing of those battery types and focused on producing lithium.
Not only are taxpayers having to foot the bill for nearly a quarter of this for-profit investment, but there are opportunity costs lost in what could have come out of further innovation that was halted because business owners wanted to take advantage of a tax break.
Thank God the people manufacturing buggy whips didn’t have a better lobbyists. Who knows what subsidies they would be getting!
It’s time for common sense to intervene. It is questionable whether or not Washington is capable of common sense, but if the current Congress intends to be re-elected, they need to do what needs to be done to correct the problems in our tax system. It is long past time for an overhaul and long past time for excuses.
What Does It Cost?
From a friend on Twitter:
I know it’s hard to read, but you get the idea. A country without borders will not remain a country for long. It’s time to reform our immigration policies to allow people to come here to work. Illegal immigrants should not be entitled to welfare benefits. We simply cannot afford to support them. If Americans want to support illegal immigrants through private charities, that is their privilege, but taxpayer money should go to those who are here legally.
Exactly What Did The Stimulus Do?
The American Thinker posted an article today about what happened to the Middle Class under President Obama. Basically the value of the American dollar shrank and the Middle Class shrank.
The article reports:
A December 2015 study of the American middle class done by the Pew Research center found that for the first time in over forty years the middle class no longer includes the majority of Americans. The plain fact is, after the largest so-called stimulus government spending program in world history, conducted by President Obama and his Democratic Party, both the number of persons in the middle class and the proportion of the population shrank.
The Pew Hispanic Center May 2016 Study found that at the end of President Obama’s second term, the middle class had been shrinking in the vast majority of metropolitan areas of the US. The important of the metropolitan areas is that 1) 76% of all Americans live in metro areas, 2) metro areas are the areas where most jobs are located, and 3) illegal immigration is promoted in metro areas all across the nation.
While the shrinking middle class proves that government cannot raise the incomes of middle class persons in the US through stimulus spending, at the same time it shows that the increasing tax burden on the middle class eats away at their disposable income and their lack of spending hurts the local economies.
The article concludes:
The Tax Foundation also looked at the sources of state and local taxes and published a study in June 2017. While property taxes remain the single greatest source of tax revenues, the idea that the property tax goes solely to fund public services such as police, water and sewer maintenance, street lighting, etc. is now a lie in many areas. The Illinois Policy Institute audited all the cities of Illinois and found that in 10 of the cities including Chicago, all of the property taxes collected go only to pay public sector pensions. This leaves a huge gap in the funding of local public services, which is why Chicago has the highest sales tax, some of the highest taxes on tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, etc.
OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. This can be interpreted as proof that stimulus programs don’t work or, as I have argued, that the spending was never intended to stimulate the economy: only to bolster the equities values of public sector union pension plans, since they are the largest contributors to the Democratic Party’s national machine in all fifty states. We are losing our incomes because we’ve been forced to subsidize Obama’s political party. The debt, Fed balance sheet, and financial instability indicate there’s no end in sight.
There are a number of conclusions we can draw from this. First of all, when workers in local municipalities formed unions, bad things happened. Unions donate to political candidates. Therefore people elected to municipal offices have an incentive to be nice to unions. How do you be nice to unions and also nice to taxpayers? When negotiating contracts, you provide benefits that will not immediately show up in the budget. You create unfunded liabilities such as permanent health care for retirees or wonderful pensions that employees don’t have to pay into. Unfunded liabilities are the burden that is poised to sink many of our towns and cities in America.
In actuality, if the federal government had simply given every taxpaying American $40,000, the stimulus would have been cheaper and actually made a difference in the average American’s life. Instead, the President who claimed to represent the little people simply paid off the wealthy donors who paid to elect him.
Curiouser and Curiouser
Last Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported that Imran Awan still has a secret email account on the House of Representatives computer system. Mr. Awan has been banned from the congressional network because of a criminal investigation into the alleged cybersecurity violations.
I need to say here that in spite of this blog, I am not a computer person and am not in danger of becoming one. However, I saw “War Games” and remember the comment that programmers often put ‘back doors’ in their programs. I checked with my husband, who is a computer person, and he assured me that programmers do things like that. Therefore, it should not be a surprise to anyone that Mr. Awan set up a secret email account. The article notes that authorities shut down Mr. Awan’s known email account in early February. If The Daily Caller knows about the second account, do the authorities? Now that this story is out, when will the second account be shut down? Are there more accounts? What is being done with the information collected in these accounts?
The story gets even more strange. The article reports:
Imran Awan’s still-active email address is linked to the name of a House staffer who specializes in intelligence and homeland security matters for Indiana Democratic Rep. André Carson. Court documents and emails obtained by TheDCNF show Awan used the address 123@mail.house.gov in addition to his standard imran.awan@mail.house.gov account.
He and two of his Pakistani-born brothers, as well as his wife, are at the center of an FBI investigation over their IT work with dozens of Democratic congressional offices. Authorities shut down Awan’s standard email account Feb. 2, and he was arrested by the FBI at Dulles International Airport trying to board a flight to his native Pakistan on July 25.
Authorities apparently did not realize Awan has a second account that is not linked to his identity. While his main email address began rejecting mail after it was shut down, the 123 address was still accepting mail Tuesday.
Why doesThe Daily Caller has better investigators than the government?
The article further states:
Until last year, email addresses were created by individual offices, but now members have to request HIR to set up new addresses. Carson’s office is not showing any concern that an indicted IT guy apparently set up a secret email address using the name of his deputy chief of staff, who is also his top intelligence staffer, and that the account is still active. Since the account was still accepting emails as of Tuesday afternoon, it appears Carson’s office has not alerted anyone of the security vulnerability.
I have a feeling that if someone (whoever that someone may be) successfully unravels all the threads in this case, they will have made major progress in draining the swamp that is Washington, D.C. (if they are able to stay alive). That may be the reason most of the media is ignoring something that is major in terms of espionage and national security.
Making It Legal Did Not Improve The Quality
On Friday, CNS News posted a story about San Francisco Bay Area marijuana. Evidently, legal marijuana in California is not necessarily pure as the wind-driven snow.
The article reports:
“The greatest threat standing in the way of California’s march toward legalized marijuana isn’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Big Pharma. It’s the cannabis industry itself,” San Francisco Magazine reports:
“Much of the roughly $1 billion in cannabis sold in California’s 1,000-plus dispensaries every year is dirty.”
A study of buds, edibles and concentrates entered in last August’s HempCon competition found that 80 percent was tainted. The study, conducted by Anresco, found mold, pesticides and harmful solvents in the pot products.
Some of the health threats posed by the tainted marijuana are:
- Cancer,
- Reproductive toxicity,
- Developmental toxicity
- Lung infections,
- Cardiovascular issues, and
- Neurotoxicity
How is that any better than tobacco?
This Just Gets Uglier
Some serious and relevant information has come out in the past few days regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the documents that were not turned over to the people investigating the server. On Friday, I posted an article dealing with the information that the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing was made before the investigation was complete. That is true, but I missed to root of the problem.
The following video was posted at YouTube on Thursday. It further explains what has recently been revealed:
Yesterday Andrew McCarty posted an article at National Review that pointed out some things that I had overlooked.
The article at National Review states:
The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not calling the shots.
On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the revelation that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference.
The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.
Andrew McCarthy reminds us of one of his previous statements:
On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.
This is the statement we need to be looking at. This was President Obama telling the FBI to ‘stand down’ on the investigation. It was later revealed that President Obama had communicated with Mrs. Clinton on her private email server. It is quite possible that these communications included classified information. Therefore, if Hillary Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information, so was President Obama. Therefore, the FBI had to find a way not to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime (regardless of the fact that she had obviously committed one). The moral of the story is, “If you are going to do something illegal, make sure a very powerful person does it with you.”
Andrew McCarthy concludes:
Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.
That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.
And that is the reason we will probably never see Mrs. Clinton held accountable for her mishandling of classified information.
Irony At Its Best!
From my friends at Power Line:
Judicial Watch Is On The Case
The following Press Release was issued by Judicial Watch yesterday:
Sues for Records on Links Between FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it today filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of Jeffrey A. Danik, a retired FBI supervisory special agent, against the U.S. Department of Justice for records concerning FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (Jeffrey A. Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01792)). Danik worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for almost 30 years.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia in support of Danik’s October 25, 2016, and February 28, 2017, FOIA requests for records about McCabe’s “conflicts of interest” regarding his wife’s (Dr. Jill McCabe’s) political campaign, and McCabe’s reporting to the FBI of any job interviews or offers. Specifically, the two FOIA requests seek:
Text messages and emails of McCabe containing “Dr. Jill McCabe,” “Jill,” “Common Good VA,” “Terry McAuliffe,” “Clinton,” “Virginia Democratic Party,” “Democrat,” “Conflict,” “Senate,” “Virginia Senate,” “Until I return,” “Paris,” “France,” “Campaign,” “Run,” “Political,” “Wife,” “Donation,” “OGC,” Email,” or “New York Times.”
In 2015, a political action committee run by McAuliffe, a close friend and political supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, donated nearly $500,000 to Jill McCabe, wife of McCabe, who was then running for the Virginia State Senate. Also, the Virginia Democratic Party, over which McAuliffe had significant influence, donated an additional $207,788 to the Jill McCabe campaign. In July 2015, Andrew McCabe was in charge of the FBI’s Washington, DC, field office, which provided personnel resources to the Clinton email probe.
“I am saddened by how the FBI’s reputation has been tarnished by the poor judgement and ethics of its leadership,” stated Mr. Danik. “I know I’m not the only retired (or serving) FBI special agent who is concerned about Mr. McCabe’s conflicts of interest on the Clinton email matter. The agency seems to be illegally hiding records about this scandal, which is why I’m heading to court with Judicial Watch.”
“We’re honored to help Mr. Danik hold accountable the FBI—the agency he served for decades,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We believe Mr. McCabe’s text messages and emails will be particularly enlightening to the public seeking answers about the Clinton email debacle.”
In July 2017, Judicial Watch filed three FOIA lawsuits seeking communications between the FBI and McCabe concerning “ethical issues” involving his wife’s political campaign; McCabe’s communications with McAuliffe; and McCabe’s travel vouchers.
There are obviously some honest FBI agents who are concerned with the reputation of the Agency. Hopefully, the corruption in the FBI will be exposed and dealt with.
Legal Plunder
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. In 1850, he published a pamphlet called “The Law.”
The website which contains the translation of “The Law” includes the following statement:
As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are — word for word — equally valid today.
“The Law” includes the following definition of ‘legal plunder‘:
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
This statement pretty much describes the current tax system in America.
An article posted in The New York Post yesterday further illustrates this point.
The article in The New York Post states:
Americans spent more money on taxes than they did on food and clothing last year, according to data released earlier this week.
In an assessment of “Consumer Expenditures” for 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the average bill for federal, state and local taxes was $10,489.
By comparison, Americans spent $9,006 on food and clothes, with most of that going toward food.
CNSNews.com first pointed out the findings. While it may not come as a surprise that American households are shelling out to Uncle Sam, the data showed that bill has risen sharply in recent years — the average tax bill rose 41 percent overall since 2013.
According to the BLS, federal income taxes rose from $5,743 to $8,367 in that period. State and local income taxes rose from $1,629 to $2,046.
The stats come as President Trump prepares to pressure Congress to pass tax reform. In a Missouri speech on Wednesday, he called for simplifying the system and lowering rates.
More importantly, what are our taxes being used for? Are they being used for purposes outlined in the U.S. Constitution? Are they being used strictly for national defense, or are they being used to prop up a political system in Washington that will never be satisfied with the amount of money it controls and will always want more money from the people who earn it?
The article in The New York Post states that the largest expense for Americans in 2016 was housing. It is time to let Americans who work keep the money they earn. Washington needs to learn to do with less.
Shout Out
Just wanted to give a shout out to Mr. Audio and Video. We recently built a new house, and they wired in extra speakers for the television and mounted the televisions. They did an excellent job. Their website is www.mraudioandvideo.biz. They are located in Newport, NC, but are willing to travel!
Facts–We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Facts!
The Conservative Treehouse reported yesterday that James Comey drafted his conclusions in the Clinton email server investigation before he interviewed the witnesses. Wow! The man is obviously clairvoyant–he knew exactly what their testimony would be and didn’t need to hear it. Well, not quite.
The article includes the following:
In a letter from Senator Chuck Grassley to new FBI Director Christopher Wray (full pdf below) the senator outlines some disturbing information discovered in documents reviewed by the judicial committee.
Chief among the issues was a discovery that fired FBI Director James Comey had already drafted a preliminary conclusion that Hillary Clinton was not going to be held responsible; the FBI Director’s position was created in April and May 2016 before sixteen key investigative witnesses, including Mrs. Clinton herself, were even interviewed.
I may be missing something here, but if Hillary Clinton was not responsible for setting up and using her private email server, who was?
Senator Grassley’s letter includes the following:
As of early May 2016, the FBI had not yet interviewed Secretary Clinton. Moreover, it had yet to finish interviewing sixteen other key witnesses, including Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, and John Bentel.
These individuals had intimate and personal knowledge relating to Secretary Clinton’s
non-government server, including helping her build and administer the device. Yet, it appears that the following key FBI interviews had not yet occurred when Mr. Corney began drafting his exoneration statement:
1. May 3, 2016 – Paul Combetta 9. June 10, 2016 – John Bentel
2. May 12, 2016- Sean Misko 10. June 15, 2016 – Lewis Lukens
3. May 17, 2016- Unnamed CIA 11. June 21, 2016 – Justin Cooper
employee 5 12. June 21, 2016- Unnamed State
4. May 19, 2016- Unnamed CIA Dept. Employee 7
employee 6 13. June 21, 2016 – Bryan Pagliano
5. May 24, 2016 – Heather Samuelson 14. June 21, 2016 – Purcell Lee
6. May 26, 2016 – Marcel Lehel (aka 15. June 23, 2016-Monica Hanley
Guccifer) 16. June 29, 2016 – Hannah Richert
7. May 28, 2016 – Cheryl Mills 17. July 2, 2016 – Hillary Clinton
8. June 3, 2016- Charlie Wisecarver
Conclusion first, fact-gathering second-that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.
Mr. Corney’s final statement acknowledged “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information” but nonetheless cleared Secretary Clinton because he claimed there was no intent or obstruction of justice. Yet, evidence of destruction of emails known to be under subpoena by the House of Representatives, and subject to congressional preservation requests, was obtained in interviews around the time that Mr. Corney began drafting his exoneration statement. Moreover, the Justice Department entered into highly unusual immunity agreements with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in June 2016-after Mr. Corney began drafting his exoneration statement-to review Clinton email archives on their laptops.
This is the swamp. The only way to get rid of it is to fill Congress with honest people who are not currently involved in Washington politics. There are probably about ten members of Congress that are not part of the swamp. They deserve to be re-elected. All the others need to be sent packing at the earliest possible opportunity. Director Mueller needs to be fired, former Director Comey needs to be investigated and possibly jailed, and the FBI needs to be cleaned out and redone.
The FBI Is Beginning To Look Like Tammany Hall
On Wednesday, Circa posted an article about the current culture in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Circa is one of the few current news outlets that is actually doing investigative reporting. I don’t know how big their footprint is in the news world, but I know that I have found them to be a reliable source and a source that generally has a story before the mainstream media.
The article reports:
When the FBI launched an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one of the bureau’s top former counterterrorism agents believed that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe would have to recuse himself from the investigation.
Former Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was one of the bureau’s top intelligence analysts and terrorism experts but resigned from the bureau five years ago after she said she was harassed and her career was blocked by top FBI management. She filed a formal sexual discrimination complaint against the bureau in 2013 and it was Flynn, among many others, who publicly came to her aide.
In her first on-camera interview she described the retaliation from McCabe and others in the bureau as “vicious.”
…She told Circa, current senior level management, including McCabe, created a “cancer like” bureaucracy striking fear into FBI agents and causing others to resign. She eventually resigned herself, but her case is still pending.
…McCabe, who is under three separate federal inquiries, did not respond to requests for comment. (The italics are mine)
The article details some of the legal issues surrounding Deputy Director McCabe:
In June, a Circa investigation revealed that two weeks after Gritz filed her EEOC complaint, McCabe referred her for an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation for timecard irregularities.
Although the FBI claimed they had filed their OPR investigation prior to Gritz’s EEOC, McCabe’s own sworn testimony painted a much different picture. Gritz’s case, which is still pending, was required McCabe to submit to a sworn statement. In his testimony he recounted a conversation on June 19, 2012 in which he authorized the OPR investigation of Gritz after one of his deputies told him she was about to file a complaint, as reported by Circa.
And McCabe is also challenged with an Office of Special Counsel investigation.
The embattled former agent filed a complaint in April, alleging McCabe violated the Hatch Act, as reported by Circa in June.
The OSC is the government’s main whistle blower agency. The Hatch Act prohibits FBI employees from engaging “in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group.” McCabe appeared to be participating in his wife’s unsuccessful bid for Virginia State Senate in 2015, according to Gritz and documents obtained by Circa.
The Justice Department Inspector General investigation is also investigating McCabe after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, alleged McCabe may not have properly disclosed the roughly $700,000 in campaign contributions to his Democratic wife on his ethics report and should have recused himself from the Clinton server case.
It seems that much of the FBI is part of the Washington swamp.