Monthly Archives: March 2021

A Message To American Christians

Posted on by

As I watch our nation slide further into godlessness and immorality,  I am concerned for the future of my children and grandchildren. Yet as I watch events unfold, I am reminded that the time of Jesus’ return is drawing near. All of the conditions are being met–Israel became a nation in 1948, communication is such that worldwide simultaneous broadcasting is possible, and we are seeing what Jesus identified as ‘birth pangs.’

I don’t know exactly what America’s future will be. I know that we were founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that we have forsaken those principles. It is interesting to me that the two models the Founders used for our system of government were the Anglo-Saxons and Ancient Israel. In Exodus 18, Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, tells Moses to teach the Israelites God’s statutes and laws and to select able men who fear God to be rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. These rulers were to judge small local matters so that the burden of governance would be shared. That is the basis of our representative government. The original suggestion for our national sea paid tribute to both Ancient Israel and the Anglo-Saxons.

What is our responsibility as Christians and as Americans at this time? Obviously, we are to share the message of God’s love, but there is more. The current condition of America illustrates the wisdom of John Adam’s words, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Obviously that train has left the station.

I don’t know if it is possible to rescue America. I do believe, however, that if America is rescued, it will be a sovereign work of God through his people. So where do we start? We need to pray for our nation and for its leaders. Next we need to education our children about God’s love and the role of God in government–His place in our founding principles–and then on our history and their future responsibilities as citizens in a Constitutional Republic. Then we need to seek out virtuous (that is an old-fashioned but necessary concept) people to run for local offices (the farm team for national office) and support them with our time and efforts. Next we need to get involved with out current local and state leaders (that is where we have the most influence). We need to email, call, or write their offices regularly regarding current legislation. (All North Carolina legislators and legislation can be found at ncleg.gov). If you live in a state other than North Carolina, the same rules apply. Your state also has a legislative website that can help you get started. Get to know which state legislators will fight for your freedom. Encourage and support them.

God has placed us in a Constitutional Republic. There are responsibilities that go with the freedom He has blessed us with. Now is not the time to throw up our hands in response to the corruption we see around us. Our window of opportunity may be short. We who are living in North Carolina have some legislators who are willing to fight to maintain our freedoms, but there is no guarantee that they will win. If they do win, we may become a small island of freedom in an ocean of tyranny. Our redemption is near, but we have work to do in the meantime.

Congress Evidently Has It’s Own Concept Of Reality

Posted on by

Yesterday One America News posted an article about some recent comments by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi stated that she blames President Trump and climate change for the current border crisis (she refuses to call it a crisis–she refers to it as a “humanitarian challenge.”

The article reports:

She said the Biden administration inherited a broken system, and even went as far as to say migrants were fleeing Central America because of so-called “climate change.”

“My most recent trip to the Northern Triangle, that would be Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, you saw the impact of the climate change,” Pelosi stated. “Mind you, these people were leaving because of the drought they couldn’t farm.”

Critics are now pointing out how Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been promising amnesty to illegal migrants, ultimately enticing the thousands of people to flood the United States in droves.

When you stop construction of the border wall and dangle amnesty in front of people in incredibly poor countries, they see hope for a better life by coming to America without waiting in line. I don’t blame them for wanting a better life, but breaking the law to enter a country is not a good way to start your life there. We are sending large amounts of money to the countries these migrants are from, and obviously the money is doing nothing to help the people in those countries. It is time not only to review our immigration policies but also to review our foreign aid policies. If the money we are sending is only going to corrupt leaders and not to the people who need it, why should we send money?

What Has Happened To Our Supreme Court?

Posted on by

As I am sure you remember, the Democrats have threatened to pack the Supreme Court if it rules against their agenda items (many of which are unconstitutional). That may explain why Chief Justice Roberts has made some very questionable rulings lately.

On March 8, The Federalist posted an article about a recent dissent by Chief Justice Roberts.

The article reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts was the only dissenter in the U.S Supreme Court’s most recent ruling favoring a couple of Christian students who challenged their university for restricting when, where, and how they could speak about their faith and disseminate materials on campus.

The article includes the following Tweet:

When have eight of the Supreme Court Justices agreed on anything?

The article at The Federalist summarizes the case:

Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. first materialized after Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was stopped by campus police for handing out religious materials on campus, a reported violation of the school’s “Freedom of Expression Policy,” which limited distributions and other expressions to free speech zones only with permission from the administration. Even after Uzuegbunam moved to the designated areas with permission, however, campus police attempted to stop him from speaking and handing out religious literature, prompting him and another student, Joseph Bradford, to take legal action against the university for violating their First and 14th Amendment rights and seek nominal damages.

The students’ attempts to sue the school, however, were shot down by both a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after Georgia Gwinnett College changed its “Freedom of Expression” policy to remove barriers on when and where students could speak on campus and filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot. The Supreme Court took up the case after Uzuegbunam and Bradford noted that their rights were still violated no matter what the university modified its policy to reflect and still required a ruling on nominal damages.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of the court, agreeing with the students’ case.

The student’s First Amendment rights were violated. What other recourse did he have but to sue the school?

The Violence Continues

Posted on by

Somehow the state government of Oregon has not yet learned how to run an organized, civil society. The riots in Portland have continued despite the fact that the administration in Washington D.C. has changed. However, the media seems to be uninterested in reporting the riots.

CNS News posted an article Friday about recent events in Portland.

The article reports:

“The left-wing insurrection continues in Portland and the media yawn,” Bozell tweeted in response to a post by former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

Retweeting video and news by Post Millennial Editor-at-Large Andy Ngo of Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters storming a U.S. courthouse in Portland, Fleischer noted the double-standard regarding violence against federal government facilities:

“Attacking some Federal Courthouse in Portland is ok it seems. At least, attacking it all the time doesn’t lead to mass condemnation. Attacking the US Congress is not ok. That was and should be condemned. The Portland attacks should be condemned too.”

…In his tweet, Ngo describes the scene as federal offices clash with taunting rioters:

“Footage of #antifa & BLM rioters being pushed back by federal officers after they tried to storm the Mark O. Hatfield US Courthouse in downtown Portland. They taunt the officers, telling them to shoot. #PortlandRiots”

This does not sound like something the media should be ignoring or that the government should not want to stop.

Canceling The Things That Unify Us

Posted on by

Almost all Americans celebrate July 4th in some fashion. It is a holiday that brings us together. Well, the unity President has decided to cancel some of the July 4th celebration despite the promise that things may be getting back to ‘normal’ by that time.

The New York Post reported on Friday that the Biden administration has decided not to allow Fourth of July fireworks at Mount Rushmore.

The article reports:

The National Parks Service made the call despite Biden saying in a primetime speech Thursday that COVID-19 likely will wane to the point of life nearing normal by July 4.

Parks Service Regional Director Herbert Frost wrote to South Dakota’s tourism office that it it is “only prudent to make plans based on the best available science and public health guidance available today.”

“Potential risks to the park itself and to the health and safety of employees and visitors associated with the fireworks demonstration continue to be a concern and are still being evaluated as a result of the 2020 event,” Frost wrote in the letter, which was first reported by The Hill.

Frost also wrote, “In addition, the park’s many tribal partners expressly oppose fireworks at the Memorial.”

The letter said the Park Service is “unable to grant a request to have fireworks at the Memorial.”

The article also notes that South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem wants the fireworks this year and is working to overturn the decision.

It’s Okay To Be A Security Risk If You Are A Democrat

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart posted an article about Representative Eric Swalwell, who has recently been reappointed to the House Intelligence Committee.

The article reports:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) will offer a resolution to force Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) off his Intelligence Committee assignment after having a reltionship with an alleged Chinese spy.

McCarthy said he would offer a resolution to remove Swalwell from the Intelligence Committee next week. This represents another attempt by the Minority Leader to hold Swalwell accountable after reported ties between him and Chinese national Christine Fang.

McCarthy on Friday tweeted, “Pelosi just reappointed Eric Swalwell to the Intelligence Committee. Based on the briefing she and I received together, Swalwell should not be on the panel in charge of Guarding our nation’s secrets. Next week, I will offer a resolution to remove him from the Intel Committee.

The article concludes:

McCarthy also told Fox News Channel’s Ingraham Angle, “Not only should he be removed from the Intel [Committee]. He should be removed from Congress, as well.” McCarthy asked if Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) knew about this information.

It seems to me that even if the relationship with Christine Fang was totally innocent, the relationship indicates that Representative Swalwell was not exercising good judgement in pursuing the relationship. He needs to be removed from the Committee simply on the basis of his poor judgement.

Denying The Value Of All Human Life

Posted on by

Yesterday The National Review posted an article about a bill that just passed the House of Commons in Canada.

The article reports:

…A bill just passed the House of Commons that — barring shockingly unforeseen resistance in the Senate, which already voted to loosen the rules — will radically expand eligibility for euthanasia in Canada, including the following provisions:

    • Reasonably foreseeable death will no longer be required. That opens the door to euthanizing people with disabilities, patients diagnosed with dementia but still competent, as well as the mentally ill.
    • After a further time for studying the issue of creating protective guidelines (!!), people whose sole medical problem is mental illness will explicitly qualify for euthanasia.
    • There will be no waiting period required between request for death and termination for people whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable — a very lax term. This means a patient with, say, two years of life expectancy could theoretically be killed immediately upon request.

The expansion will eventually continue to allowing people diagnosed with dementia to order themselves killed in an advance directive when they become mentally incompetent and to pediatric euthanasia of “mature minors” — both among the subjects likely to be “studied” by a committee of “experts” over the next two years, meaning they are coming next.

Disability-rights activists fought back furiously and backed a filibuster over the bill that succeeded for a time. But it was eventually broken by the ruling minority Liberals and Bloc Québécois.

The despair of people with disabilities on Twitter after the vote was visceral, with some noting that Canada does not guarantee life with dignity — with say, independent living services — but will guarantee “death with dignity” when the paucity of services leads to a suicidal desire. They feel, rationally, like targets rather than beneficiaries.

It is also worth noting that only 15 percent of Canadians have access to quality palliative care. Not to worry, the panel of experts will “study” that too. Good grief.

This is frightening. It should also be taken as a warning to America–if healthcare is ever run by the government, not only will the quality of care decrease, the availability of care will also decrease. There will come a time when disabled or elderly Americans will not be able to obtain even the minimal care that they need, and there will be attempts made to persuade them to take advantage of assisted suicide. That has been happening for years in the Netherlands. We don’t need to bring it here.

The Road We Are On

Posted on by

Today the Dan Bongino website posted an article about five far-left promises the Biden administration has kept since taking office.

This is the list:

1. Revoking the Keystone XL Pipeline

2. Ending Migration Controls

3. Pledge to Get Back into the World Health Organization (W.H.O.)

4. Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord

5. Halting Deportations for Most Illegal Aliens

Please follow the link to the article to read the details given.

I would like to mention the impact of a few of these policies. Revoking the Keystone XL Pipeline moves America away from energy independence. It costs Americans involved in the project their jobs and puts small supporting businesses in the area in jeopardy. Ending migration controls is resulting not only in a crisis at our southern border, but also in the release of people who have the coronavirus into the general population throughout the country. Getting back in the W.H.O. is simply giving taxpayer money to a corrupt organization that is responsible for the deaths of many people worldwide because it bought the Chinese propaganda about the coronavirus. Rejoining the Paris Climate Account will result in Americans losing their jobs and a lower standard of living for everyone. Halting deportations for most illegal aliens puts a drain on the social safety net in cities and towns where the illegals choose to go. Again, that is a drain on American taxpayers.

Nothing in the above five policy moves helps the average American. We have gone from four years where our President was willing to fight for the average American to a time when only the elites are considered when crafting a policy.

Approaching A Police State

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Gateway Pundit posted the video below. The video is an eye-witness account of what happened at the Capitol on January 6th. The video also details what happened to Pressley Stutts, a retired Navy Chaplain who attended the Trump rally, following those events. In case you don’t have the patience to watch the video, I have posted highlights of Chaplain Stutts’ story below.

The following summary is from a friend who has followed these events closely:

30 year old Navy Chaplin attended the events on 6 January 2021, in D.C.   There have been some things happening to him since the event.

He attended with a group of 200 people from South Carolina.   He was on the West steps of the Capital – was invited to be there by someone in police uniforms – not sure who because he did not look further than to verify they were in police uniforms.   He arrived after the President had finished his speech.   He was about 1/2 up the steps of the Capital steps.   The barricades had been removed.   He did not go up on the scaffolding.  They were chanting “Our House, USA.”   Did see tear gas going off to the left.   There were people yelling – “No ANTIFA” to people banging the doors and poking the doors – they were dressed in black and grey.   His group were getting alerts the Capital has been breached.   He believes ANTIFA/BLM were trying to break into the Capital – not the Trump supporters.   Believes Trump supporters did go in – thinking they were being invited in because of the police inviting them.  

Spent the night in Alexandria and watched the news reports.  Got a call the following morning from a talk show host.  Got a text from a Congressman to ask him to talk to the FBI after getting home.   So he agreed to talk to the FBI voluntarily.   They met him at his home.   He gave his statement.  Things went fine the first 30 minutes, then it turned into an interrogation.  He asked if he was under investigation, the FBI agent refused to answer the question, and he then ended the interview.   Has not heard from the FBI since mid-January.

When he went on Friday to go to a conference and check in at the airport AA counter.   Agent makes some phone calls, 20 minutes later, said was trying to verify who he was.   Gave drivers license, military ID, and tickets.  Then after 30 minutes, said he had been cleared.   Got to the TSA area.  3/4 agents came to him and asked him to have his bags randomly inspected after going through two scanners.   Very detailed inspection to include patting him down.  Took an hour.   Got to the gate and was greeted by another set of TSA agents who told him he was randomly selected to undergo a check – holding the plane until they finished.  Had two layovers.  At next stop when ready to re-board was selected “randomly” again for a complete check.   The next day at the next layover – the exact same thing happened again at the airport.  

and the story continues…..   he needs to play the lottery winning all these random checks!

I suspect that Chaplain Stutts’ story is not unique. Toward the end of the video, he mentions that some of the people who attended the CPAC gathering in Florida have also been subjected to increased federal scrutiny. Our Department of Justice is no longer an organization that administers justice and investigations on a level playing field.

Hong Kong Has Lost Its Freedom

Posted on by

I am sure that the headline above is not news to anyone who has been paying attention, but there has been another nail in the coffin of freedom in Hong Kong.

The London Times reported the following today:

China’s grip on the city tightened yesterday when its parliament unanimously approved new election rules that make it almost impossible for democracy activists to run for office.

The National People’s Congress voted 2,895-0, with one abstention, for the changes that will give Beijing a veto on candidates deemed unpatriotic.

…Beijing said the changes were necessary to return Hong Kong to its constitutional order after mass protests, and that patriots would be able to stand.

…Zhang Xiaoming, from the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, said that the “chaos” of recent years showed that the city’s electoral system had “clear loopholes and shortcomings”.

John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog commented on the election changes in Hong Kong:

Our electoral system had “clear loopholes and shortcomings” too, as revealed by the election of Donald Trump. The Democrats are moving to close those “loopholes” via H.R. 1 and other measures intended to assure that only those approved by them can be elected in the future.

The rest of the Times article is devoted to the ongoing exodus of freedom-loving Hong Kongers to Australia and the U.K. Here in America, I am not sure where we will flee if the Democrats succeed in curing the “loopholes and shortcomings” in our electoral system.

I am also unsure of where to flee. Does anyone know of a small island in the Caribbean that might be for sale?

Not Surprising, But Sad

Posted on by

On Wednesday, American Greatness reported the following:

The Wisconsin House of Representatives on Wednesday held a hearing to review election irregularities after newly revealed documents obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight revealed that Democrat activists, funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, were able to infiltrate the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin’s five largest cities.

In Green Bay, a Democrat activist was actually given keys to the room where absentee ballots were stored before the 2020 presidential election.

The city received a total of $1.6 million in grant funding from the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, according to Wisconsin Spotlight. A Democrat operative from New York named Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein became a “grant mentor.”

Spitzer-Rubenstein was the Wisconsin head of the left-wing National Vote at Home Institute, and has worked for several Democrat Party candidates.  The Democrat mayor’s office gave the liberal activist access to Green Bay’s absentee ballots just days before the election.

The Wisconsin Spotlight’s report has prompted several Wisconsin lawmakers to call for the resignation of Green Bay’s mayor, and for an investigation into the city’s handling of the November presidential election.

According to the report, the emails show that Green Bay’s “highly partisan” Democrat Mayor Eric Genrich and his staff usurped city Clerk Kris Teske’s authority and let the Zuckerberg-funded “grant team” take over in “a clear violation of Wisconsin election statutes.”

The article concludes:

“Unable to learn from his mistakes, Mayor Genrich and his staff deliberately, forcefully, and repeatedly interfered in November’s election administration. Is that why Green Bay’s Clerk and Deputy Clerk resigned?,” Bernier said. “He has shown himself unfit as an executive and should himself resign immediately from the position of Mayor of Green Bay.”

State Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Green Bay),urged Brown County District Attorney David Lasee to examine whether “these allegations were part of any sort of pay-for-play scheme.”

“Every American should have confidence in how their elections are run. This massive abuse of power significantly damages that trust, and we must ensure that situations like this cannot occur in the future,” Wimberger said in a statement.

“I’m still shaking my head that the keys were given to someone who was not a municipal employee,” Juno testified at the hearing. “It doesn’t smell right.”

No kidding.

Hidden Inside The Covid Relief Bill

Posted on by

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about the tax increases hidden in the recently passed Covid Relief Bill.

The article reports:

There is more than $57 billion worth of hidden tax increases in President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill, Just the News has learned.

The final version of the legislation expands the number of employees who are covered by the $1 million limitation on the deductibility of executive compensation.

According to National Law Review, section 162(m) of the tax code “generally prohibits a public company from deducting more than $1 million in compensation paid to a current or former covered employee in a taxable year,” and under current law “the covered employees are the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and the three other highest compensated officers for the taxable year.”

The executive compensation deduction change in the stimulus bill covers 5 more of a company’s highest paid employees.

“TCJA [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] included such a limit, but Dems essentially doubled it to make it more draconian,” a House Ways and Means Committee minority spokesperson said. “Dems are under no illusions that their bill is about growth, so them putting a cap on executive pay is just political messaging.”

A $500,000 limit on the amount of losses that “passthrough corporations” can use to get liquidity is also tucked inside the bill, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation document obtained by Just the News.

The Joint Committee on Taxation spokesman also noted that the above provision that the Democrats have ended was what allowed small businesses to get the fast tax refunds from the IRS that kept many of them alive during the lockdowns.

The article continues:

Another tax provision in the stimulus, the second largest rescue package in U.S. history, involves new limitations on the interest expenses that multinational corporations can deduct on tax returns.

This change makes doing business in America less attractive and will return us to the days when American corporations moved overseas.

Aside from the cost of the Covid Relief bill, it is a bill that will stifle the growth of the American economy. That growth would have at least provided some of the money needed to fund the bill. We are headed back to the days of very slow economic growth or no growth at all.

This Needs To Be Investigated In All States Where The Policy Was Put In Place

Posted on by

Just the News is reporting the following today:

A Michigan county prosecutor on Thursday laid out his effort to review Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s policies on COVID health-safety policies on nursing homes, in response to a high number of deaths in such facilities over roughly the past year.

An estimated 5,537 people have died in long-term care facilities in the state since the pandemic started about a year ago, which is about 35 percent of all COVID-related deaths in Michigan over that time period. 

Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido said he’s effectively reviving a roughly 68-year-old review board, formed to protect children, to look into Whitmer’s policies.

Good governance is a matter of life and death. That has been proven in the past year–Florida probably has one of the highest elderly populations in the country and yet managed the virus very well. They protected the elderly and pretty much let the rest of the population go on with their business. Many of the states led by Democrats locked down their states but sent coronavirus patients into nursing homes where the most vulnerable residents of their state lived.

The article notes:

Lucido, following up on statements Monday calling on residents to ask for medical records of family members who died in a nursing home, then file a police report. He said Thursday that residents should give local law enforcement such information as when and where the death occurred. He also said the name of the attending physician should be included.

He said earlier that his efforts have been slowed by such records are protected under so-called HIPAA laws that protect patient information.

Whitmer said amid complaints that her administration has not been forthcoming with data related to virus deaths in nursing homes told a local TV station: “I’m proud of the work that we did. We can parse through different angles of statistics and compare ourselves with other states but … I think that it sometimes can be a fool’s errand because the way that we are congregating data varies from state to state. When there’s never a national strategy, (it’s) hard to really compare apples to apples.”

It is possible that the Governors in the states that sent coronavirus patients into nursing homes did not understand the risk. However, when the risk became apparent, the policies should have been quickly changed. Governor’s who did not change their policy after it became obvious what was happening need to be removed from office.

I Wish They Had Read The Bill Before They Voted

Posted on by

I suspect that there are many surprises in the Covid Relief Bill that was just passed by Congress (and expected to be signed by the President this afternoon). However, there is one surprise that caught my attention.

Reason reported the following yesterday:

Buried within the $1.9 trillion emergency spending bill that Congress sent to President Joe Biden’s desk on Wednesday is a provision that could effectively block states from cutting taxes if they accept federal bailout dollars.

That provision, added to the bill by the Senate last week, could put a halt to several states’ plans to cut taxes this year as a way to stimulate economic growth following the COVID-19 pandemic. Depending on how the text is interpreted, the measure could also make it illegal for states to create new tax credit programs like the ones that have become a popular mechanism for expanding school choice. Critics say this expansion of federal control over state policymaking is murky at best, and potentially unconstitutional.

First of all, I am not convinced that even one-tenth of our current Congress has read the U.S. Constitution, so why would they worry about passing a bill that is unconstitutional?

The article continues:

First, the basics: The COVID-19 relief-bill-that-isn’t-really-a-relief-bill contains $350 billion earmarked for state governments, local governments, and Native American tribes. That money is supposed to help governments fill temporary budget holes created by the pandemic—even though the funding vastly exceeds actual state and local budget shortfalls, as Reason’s Christian Britschi has previously reported. States are in such non-dire straits, in fact, that about $150 billion of the state aid distributed as part of last year’s Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act hasn’t even been spent yet.

Since the federal government is giving states money that they don’t need, there are two things state lawmakers can do: Use the federal money to grow government spending or pass that extra cash along to taxpayers by lowering their tax burdens.

However, the Senate inserted language in the American Rescue Plan expressly telling states that they “shall not use the funds provided…to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue,” or do anything that “reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.”

That same section of the bill also bans states from depositing the federal bailout into their public pension funds. That’s probably a good idea, but it’s pretty ironic considering that the American Rescue Plan also contains a completely indefensible bailout of some private-sector pension funds run by labor unions.

Stay tuned. I suspect that as time goes on we will find many more legislative gems in this bill.

North Carolina Is Taking A Step Toward Election Integrity

Posted on by

Representative Keith Kidwell has introduced a bill into the North Carolina House of Representatives that represents a small step toward election integrity in North Carolina. The bill is only 12 lines long.

This is the bill:

This is a beginning. According to the North Carolina legislature webpage, the Bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary 1. Stay tuned.

The Biden Administration And The Supreme Court

Posted on by

Part of President Trump’s effort to fight illegal immigration was to withhold funds from “Sanctuary Cities.” Needless to say, some of those Sanctuary Cites sued to government. On March 5th, The Epoch Times posted an article detailing what has happened to those lawsuits in the Biden administration.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court has dismissed three pending requests to hear challenges to the Trump administration’s order to withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions—states and cities that refuse to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security efforts to deport people residing in the United States illegally.

“After a request from the Biden administration yesterday, the Supreme Court just dismissed three pending cert petitions (requests to hear a case) about the Trump administration’s effort to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities,” the SCOTUSblog Twitter account noted.

…After taking office, Biden rescinded Trump’s 2017 executive order, in another course reversal by the new administration on various Trump policies that had been challenged in court and were heading to the Supreme Court for consideration.

Given Biden’s decision to revoke Trump’s sanctuary city order, which effectively moots the associated policies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed letters with the Supreme Court in all three related cases, seeking their dismissal and noting an agreement had been made with the parties that were challenging Trump’s action.

The article concludes:

Last month, the Supreme Court canceled oral arguments in two other cases after Biden changed course from Trump. Both were appeals by the Trump administration—one defending funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and the other defending the “remain in Mexico” asylum policy.

The administration also has asked the court to cancel an upcoming argument on a policy introduced under Trump backing work requirements for people who receive healthcare under the Medicaid program for the poor.

The administration last month told the justices the Obamacare healthcare law should be upheld, reversing the position taken under Trump.

Why is the Biden administration telling the Supreme Court what to do?

Political Parties Have Platforms

Posted on by

Political parties have platforms. The people who belong to a political party generally have some agreement with that platform. When you are voting for someone to fill a political office, it is helpful to know what party they belong to in order to understand some of their basic beliefs. Recently, in the part of North Carolina where I live, some of our elected officials have changed political parties because they felt that they could no longer support a political party’s platform. However, there is still one election in our county (Craven County) where voters have no idea what party the candidates belong to–that is our Board of Education election. It would be very helpful for the voters to know what party candidates for the Board of Election belong to.

A friend sent me a list of seven reasons why it would be helpful to know the party affiliation of candidates running for the Board of Education.

  1.  All other races on the ballot require party affiliation to be specified, including most recently, judges.
  2.  All voters should have access to as much information about a candidate as is reasonably possible.
  3.  Knowledge of a candidate’s political party affiliation is an excellent way for voters to have sufficient information to make an informed decision between candidates.
  4. The two main political parties are increasingly different in values, beliefs, and guiding principles that have a direct impact on the decisions made by the Board of Education members.
  5.  In the most recent election, there were approximately 10,000 voters who voted for candidates in other races on the ballot who failed to vote for any candidate for the Board of Education.
  6.  Interviews with voters at the polls strongly indicated that many did not have enough information about the candidates for the Board of Education to make an informed decision.
  7.  The notion that Board of Education members should be above politics in making decisions about the education of our children has increasingly been shown to be wishful thinking and not consistent with reality,

If you are in agreement with the above statements and live in Craven County, please let your County Commissioner know how you feel. The only way to get political parties put in the ballot in the Board of Education elections is to have the County Commissioners ask the State Legislators to move on the issue. The State Legislators will not move on the issue unless the County Commissioners initiate it.

Term Limits

Posted on by

There has been a lot of discussion among political junkies lately about Term Limits and about an Article V Convention to institute Term Limits. First I would like to deal with the issue of Term Limits.

A friend who opposes Term Limits sent me the following:

Opposition to Term Limits

  1. Term Limits destroy our voting freedom and force us to toss out the good with the bad.

2. We have term limits now; they’re called “elections.”America’s best term-limiting device is the ballot box.

3. Term limits would mean giving lobbyists & bureaucrats more power, in that institutional memory and experience are no longer available.

4. In his farewell address in 1989, President Reagan rightly pointed out that term limits are “a preemption of the people’s right to vote for whomever they want as many times as they want.”

5. Right now, after a candidate is defeated, we have a lame duck period where there is no longer accountability to the voters for two months. A Term Limits Amendment for Congress would extend the lame duck period from two months to two years in the case of U.S. Representatives and to six years in the case of U.S. Senators!

6. The real problem is that the politicians we elect ignore our Constitution –yet we keep reelecting them.

7. Limiting their terms by an amendment merely increases the turnover of politicians in Congress who ignore our Constitution –and to whom we must pay luxurious lifetime pensions.

8. The Articles of Confederation, our first Constitution, set term limits on the Continental Congress. Our Framers considered this and rejected the idea of congressional term limits. James Madison wrote in Federalist 53: “…The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them.”

9. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater: yes, term limits would help eliminate some of the corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent Congress members, but it would also get rid of all the honest and effective ones.

Those are all good points.

Briefly I want to comment on the idea of an Article V Convention. Below are some of the issues I have with an Article V Convention:

Despite the false assurance of supporters, such a convention cannot be limited to one amendment or to specific subject matter.

In our nation today, there is widespread ignorance of the principles and original intent of the U.S. Constitution as set forth by its founders.

If the current Constitution is not obeyed, why would anyone obey a changed one? 

I simply do not believe that our current political leaders have the intellectual capacity or the basic unifying principles that our Founding Fathers had. I simply do not trust our current political leaders with my freedom.

The End To Honest Elections

Posted on by

The Democrats in the House of Representatives have passed HR1. There were no Republican votes for the bill. That is the bill that will fundamentally change American elections to the point where honest elections will become a thing of the past.

The Federalist posted an article yesterday listing fifteen of the major problems with the bill.

This is the list. Please read the entire article for details:

1. Openly Breaks the Constitution

2. Set Up Star Chambers to Intimidate Judges

3. Mandate Mail-in Ballots, 10-Day Delay in Results

4. Eliminate Voter ID Election Security

5. Register Millions Of Criminally Present Foreign Citizens to Vote

6. Explode Opportunities for Election Cheating

7. Prevent Cleaning Up Voter Rolls

8. Unleash Mobs on Political Donors

9. Gerrymander Districts to Favor Democrats

10. Make Vote Hacking Easier

11. Let Former Felons Vote Before They’ve Completed Their Sentences

12. Help 16- and 17-Year-Olds Vote Illegally

13. Bans Keeping the Records Necessary for an Election Audit or Recount

14. Mandates Ballot Drop Boxes

15. Giving U.S. Territories Extra Democrat Seats in Congress and the Electoral College

I honestly don’t know if the Republicans can stop this disaster from passing in the Senate. If it becomes law (and survives the court challenges that will follow because it is unconstitutional–states control their own elections), we will have lost our republic.

Ending Success In The Name Of Politics

Posted on by

There are a lot of reasons why the Democrats (and some Republicans) hate President Trump. He had the audacity to show that some problems in Washington could actually be solved by common sense and without raising taxes and increasing regulation. The Washington Swamp hated that. Aside from that, he was the ultimate outsider. He wasn’t part of their elite club, and no matter what he did (or didn’t do), they weren’t going to let him in. The hatred has led to a rush to undo anything President Trump did, even in undoing it hurts America and Americans. Unfortunately that is where we are right now.

On Sunday, Breitbart posted an article about three of President Trump’s foreign policy successes that President Biden is undoing.

Here are the three:

Border policy: President Trump signed agreements with Central American countries that slowed the flow of migrants. In June 2019, he announced a deal with Mexico under which it would deploy troops to its southern border and allow asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases were adjudicated in the U.S. That fall, he reached deals with the “Northern Triangle” countries to keep asylum-seekers home. There is no reason for Biden to have dismantled these humane policies, which kept vulnerable migrants out of the hands of cartels and deterred thousands from undertaking a risky journey (and sending their children to do the same). He could have kept them in place even while changing U.S. immigration policies….

Middle East: President Trump signed the Abraham Accords, creating a network of peace deals between Israel and many Arab and Muslim states. Biden has punished many of the key players: raising tariffs on the United Arab Emirates (UAE); withholding arms sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia; de-listing the anti-Saudi, pro-Iran Houthi militia as a terror group; publishing an intelligence report naming the Saudi Crown Prince as a key player in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi; and appointing the same pro-Iran diplomats who crafted the disastrous Iran nuclear deal….

Keystone XL Pipeline: It was understood that Biden would rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement — even though the U.S. reduced carbon emissions without it, and experts admitted it would not be enough to make an real impact on the global climate. However, he went further, canceling the permit for the Keystone XL — a pipeline that would have created tens of thousands of “good, paying, union jobs” (to quote Biden’s favorite refrain) on both sides of the border. The pipeline is the cleanest, least carbon-intensive way of transporting oil that will now most likely be moved by rail and by truck. Canada’s Liberal government, under Justin Trudeau, was only too happy to see the project canceled, never mind the economic cost. But all Biden needed to do was leave the Keystone XL in place.

Policies in the Middle East will also be impacted by the fact that the Biden administration has already had a very negative impact on America’s energy independence. Those of us who remember the gas lines of the 1970’s are very aware of how energy policy impacts international relations and how foreign policy impacts America’s energy supply. None of the above policies are helpful to Americans. Hopefully they can be reversed with a future Republican Congress.

 

Losing Free Speech On Our College Campuses

Posted on by

The following article is from October 2020. It is from Mark Crispin Miller’s website.

This is the story:

A full professor in NYU’s Department of Media, Culture and Communication (since 1997), and a recipient of fellowships from the Rockefeller, Guggenheim and Ingram Merrill Foundations, Prof. Miller teaches a course on propaganda, focusing not only on the history of modern propaganda, but—necessarily—on propaganda drives ongoing at the time. The aim is to teach students to identify such drives for what they are, think carefully about their claims, seek out whatever data and/or arguments have been blacked out or misreported to protect those claims from contradiction, and look into the interests financing and managing the propaganda, so as to figure out its purpose.

On Sept. 20, after a class discussion of the case for universal masking as defense against transmission of SARS-COV-2 (in which discussion she did not participate), a student took to Twitter to express her fury that Prof. Miller had brought up the randomized, controlled tests—all of those so far conducted on the subject—finding that masks and ventilators are ineffective at preventing such transmission, because the COVID-19 virions are too small for such expedients to block them. Prof. Miller urged the students to read those studies, as well as others that purport to show the opposite, with due attention to the scientific reviews thereof, and possible financial links between the researchers conducting them, and such interests as Big Pharma and the Gates Foundation. Prof. Miller followed up by providing the links to the former studies (not easily found on Google, though they have all appeared in reputable medical journals), and other materials, including a video of a debate on the subject.

The student was so outraged by Prof. Miller even mentioning those studies that she called on NYU to fire him:

The article continues:

Having contacted NYU’s bias response line to report him, and getting no satisfaction there, the student kept on tweeting her demand for Prof. Miller’s termination, due to his “unhealthy amount of skepticism around health professionals,” and a range of other posts that she had seen on News from Underground, Prof. Miller’s website, and found no less insidious, misreporting that their sources were “many far right and conspiracy websites,” and therefore, evidently, not worth reading.

…The student’s call provoked a storm of tweets, many attacking her, and others thanking her—one of which was posted by Prof. Miller’s department chair, promising to act on her demand: “Julia, thank you for reporting this issue. We as a department have made this a priority and are discussing next steps.”

Let’s stop right here for a minute. When did students decide which teachers should be fired? I think it would have been appropriate simply to tell the student to take a different class.

The article notes:

Soon after this pledge of institutional support, the dean of NYU’s Steinhardt School (in which Prof. Miller teaches), together with a doctor who advises them on COVID-19 policy, emailed each of Prof. Miller’s students (without putting him on copy), starting with a ritual nod to “academic freedom,” then hinting that the studies noted in that class were dangerous misinformation. To set them straight, the two advised the students to consult the “authoritative” CDC—specifically, its list of several recent studies finding that masks are effective against COVID-19. (That the CDC itself, as well as Dr. Fauci, had, until April, publicly adhered to the consensus of those “dangerous” studies went unmentioned.) The two concluded with a stern reminder that the students are obliged to mask on campus (although Prof. Miller had made quite clear that he was not suggesting that they break NYU’s rule, which he observes himself.)

Thus that student’s tweets immediately prompted NYU to take her side, and several media outlets to attack Prof. Miller for his dissidence, without interviewing him. The following week, NYU followed up by urging him to cancel his propaganda course next term, and, instead, teach two sections of his course on cinema. Their rationale was that it would be “better for the department,” because enrollment in the latter course is always high; but then so are the enrollments for Prof. Miller’s propaganda course, which has earned the highest praises from its students.

The above information is followed by notes from students praising the professor’s class. There is also a link at the beginning of the article to a petition to sign in support of academic freedom.

What are we doing to our children in the name of education?

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Posted on by

Right now I am part of a book study of the book, The 5000 Year Leap. The book deals with the progress made by mankind after the principles of liberty were put in place that allowed men to be free and to prosper according to their efforts. These are the principles that result in the survival of a republic. The first principle cited as a principle of freedom is the concept on Natural Law. One of the principles of Natural Law is justice by reparation, or paying for damages.  Under Natural Law, a criminal who stole something would have to make restitution to the person he stole from. Unfortunately our current justice system does not do that–if the thief is put in jail, the victim pays his room and board in addition to whatever loss he suffered. Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has recently made that system worse.

Just the News reported the following today:

The Senate recently approved the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package which includes $1,400 checks for eligible individuals, but some lawmakers are displeased that prisoners will also receive the monetary payments.

The package, which cleared the Senate on a party-line vote Saturday, must still be approved by the House prior to heading to President Biden’s desk, but according to Fox News inmates will be able to receive the individual payments under the legislation, as they were under prior coronavirus relief bills that included $1,200 and $600 payments for eligible individuals.

“The IRS had tried to withhold stimulus checks from incarcerated individuals, but a court forced their hand to offer the checks in October,” Fox reported. “There was nothing written in the previous two relief bills or the one passed Saturday against inmates receiving checks.”

The article continues:

GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas offered an amendment to the current stimulus bill to bar federal and state prisoners from getting a payment, but the amendment failed on a tight 50-49 vote, according to Fox News. Cassidy’s press release indicated that the proposal would have saved taxpayers about $1.9 billion.

“Prisoners have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer,” Cassidy said during remarks about the proposed amendment. “They don’t pay taxes. They don’t contribute to the tax base. They can’t be unemployed. In other words, inmates are not economically impacted by COVID, and inmates cannot stimulate the economy. But under this bill, Democrats are giving prisoners, again sometimes incarcerated for heinous crimes, a $1,400 stimulus check.”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois argued against the amendment, saying that it would “cause harm to the families of incarcerated individuals.” 

There is nothing I can add to that last remark!

When Intelligence Became A Political Operation

Posted on by

A friend sent me a link to the article below along with the following note:

Since Obama political appointees have infiltrated the Intelligence Community, it has gone political.   No one before Obama put political appointees there.  For example, in 2012 Obama put his White House lawyer as the NSA AG – never done before – always someone who knew the mission and had risen through the ranks held every position BUT the Director.  As Congress has to approve that position – that is the only position that was ever tainted with politics.  True for all other positions as well.   NSA, NGA, and DIA were always under the Department of Defense umbrella until 911.  After 911 they created a DNI – which caused loyalty issues for those that forgot we took an oath to the constitution not to any department or person.   That’s how Brennan got appointed.   That is how the spying on the Trump campaigned happened – Obama put people in place prior to the 2016 election to enable getting information about the opponent’s campaign to insure HRC won. 

On February 14th, 2021, Zero Hedge posted an article about what has happened to our intelligence community. The article is titled, “Opening The CIA’s Can Of Worms”

The article reports:

“The CIA and the media are part of the same criminal conspiracy,” wrote Douglas Valentine in his important book, The CIA As Organized Crime.

This is true.  The corporate mainstream media are stenographers for the national security state’s ongoing psychological operations aimed at the American people, just as they have done the same for an international audience. 

We have long been subjected to this “information warfare,” whose purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American people and pacify them into victims of their own complicity, just as it was practiced long ago by the CIA in Vietnam and by The New York Times, CBS, etc. on the American people then and over the years as the American warfare state waged endless wars, coups, false flag operations, and assassinations at home and abroad.

Another way of putting this is to say for all practical purposes when it comes to matters that bear on important foreign and domestic matters, the CIA and the corporate mainstream media cannot be distinguished.

For those who read and study history, it has long been known that the CIA has placed their operatives throughout every agency of the U.S. government, as explained by Fletcher Prouty in The Secret Team; that CIA officers Cord Myer and Frank Wisner operated secret programs to get some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom among intellectuals, journalists, and writers to be their voices for unfreedom and censorship, as explained by Frances Stonor Saunders in The Cultural Cold War and Joel Whitney in Finks, among others; that Cord Myer was especially focused on and successful in “courting the Compatible Left” since right wingers were already in the Agency’s pocket. 

All this is documented and not disputed.  It is shocking only to those who don’t do their homework and see what is happening today outside a broad historical context.

With the rise of alternate media and a wide array of dissenting voices on the internet, the establishment felt threatened and went on the defensive. It, therefore, should come as no surprise that those same elite corporate media are now leading the charge for increased censorship and the denial of free speech to those they deem dangerous, whether that involves wars, rigged elections, foreign coups, COVID-19, vaccinations, or the lies of the corporate media themselves.

There is no way I can summarize this article, so I am asking you to please follow the link and read the entire article.

The article concludes:

Robert Kennedy, Jr., by name and dedication to truth seeking, conjures up his father’s ghost, the last politician who, because of his vast support across racial and class divides, could have united the country and tamed the power of the CIA to control the narrative that has allowed for the plundering of the world and the country for the wealthy overlords.

So they killed him.

There is a reason Noam Chomsky is an exemplar for Hedges, Greenwald, and Taibbi.  He controls the can opener for so many. He has set the parameters for what is considered acceptable to be considered a serious journalist or intellectual.  The assassinations of the Kennedys, 9/11, or a questioning of the official Covid-19 story are not among them, and so they are eschewed.

To denounce censorship, as they have done, is admirable. But now Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges need go up to the forbidden gate with the sign that says – “This far and no further” – and jump over it.  That’s where the true stories lie.  That’s when they’ll see the worms squirm.

If we don’t limit the actions of the Intelligence Community and their ability to control the news Americans actually receive, we will lose our republic.

 

 

 

When Medical Facilities Have Monopolies

Posted on by

The Carolina Journal posted an article today about the Certificate of Need (CON) laws in North Carolina.

The article notes:

In theory, the system is supposed to guard patients’ access to health care.  

But the system offers a wealth of opportunities to crush unwanted competition and hamstring smaller doctors’ practices. Under CON laws, incumbent providers can take their competitors to court and force them to bleed money for months, years, or even decades.  

It may be easy to praise the system on the record. But those who criticize it do so quietly, and they fear retribution. Many declined to publish their names in this story or to speak on the record.  

“It’s human nature, so I shouldn’t be surprised, but I have clients who think it’s unconstitutional, it’s terrible, it’s an unfair restraint on trade,” said a CON attorney. “But once they get it, CON is great, it’s saving money, it’s good for the people. It’s incredible the metamorphosis they undergo.” 

According to the article, the fight against the CON laws began with Dr. Gajendra Singh, a surgeon who tried to treat poor patients. He watched patients put off medical tests only to find that they had terminal cancer that might have been checked if detected earlier.

The article reports:

Singh began the fight Singleton (Dr. Jay Singleton) carries on. 

Singh watched his patients being crushed by medical bills or catching cancer too late. One man put off getting an MRI for more than a year. What he found was worse than any medical bill. 

“So, I saw it,” Singh told WFDD. “He had a cancer spread everywhere. And that was a Stage 4 cancer. And I felt guilty. Like you know, that as a society we had failed him.” 

Singh founded his own imaging center in Forsyth County a year later, and sued to overthrow the CON regime. He is something of a legend now, at least in pockets of the medical community. 

Singh saved his patients thousands of dollars. Some drove for hours; some came from other states. Some came because of mysterious pain, and others because these were the only scans they could afford. 

“Singh, man, gotta hand it to him. But he bit off a lot,” Singleton said. “He went after the MRIs, the ‘Shangri La,’ the temple.” 

But Singh’s practice collapsed under the stress inflicted by CON laws and the COVID-19 pandemic. His patients have lost their access to affordable medical scans, and Singh has stopped talking to the press.  

“Trailblazers are usually found dead on the trail,” Singleton said. “You want to be the second guy, the third guy. Not the first guy.” 

Please follow the link to read the entire article. The article cites other examples of doctors who tried to treat patients in need and were blocked by CON laws. Thirty-five states currently have CON laws.

The article concludes:

Even former council members can’t agree on whether the CON process is driven by data or swayed by politics.  

The 25-member State Health Coordinating Council is dominated by hospital systems, which control at least 10 seats. Two business advocates, two elected lawmakers, and one insurer are tasked with representing small and large businesses.  

The critics accuse the state of playing politics with patients’ access to health care. They point to studies showing that CON states have fewer rural hospitals. 

“It’s very political. You can look at the council, see who’s there, and whose interests they’re protecting,” said a former council member who feared retribution. “Reality is, there’s an oligopoly. There’s a few big medical centers. They have all the money and all the clout.” 

CON’s supporters say the council protects the state from a destructive medical arms race. They warn that rural hospitals will close if exposed to uncontrolled competition. 

“When hospitals had to shut down electives, rural hospitals really struggled,” said Cody Hand, lobbyist for the N.C. Healthcare Association. “Without the CON laws, those hospitals couldn’t make it financially. …. Our fear is that, without CON, someone could come in and easily pick those profitable services off.” 

Another former council member believes CON laws have created monopolies. He supports parts of CON, but its process forced him to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on CON’s legal battles. 

“If they keep filing lawsuits, they can delay that competitor from coming in, and they’ll make up the legal fees,” the former council member said. “That’s been a nasty battle, there’s still bad blood between the two parties. The scars are still there.” 

He believes there has to be a legal recourse for providers. But he also acknowledged the dangers of the current system. 

“It’s crazy, crazy stuff,” he said. “The small guys, the hospital can beat them down.” 

CON reform is notoriously difficult to move in the legislature. But the N.C. Healthcare Association does support reforming the litigation that dogs the CON process, Hand said.  

Hand said he wouldn’t oppose raising the bond — or the $50,000 competitors must stake to sue over CONs — to create a “good faith scenario.” But he rejected any repeal efforts.  

“It’s a burden on my members as well,” Hand said. “But [repeal] for us is a baby with the bathwater issue.” 

Singleton is less charmed. If he heard Hand’s comment, he would likely accuse him of drowning the baby. 

“In the face of CON, you find out who the true predators are,” Singleton said. “Small hospitals have to fear our larger hospitals, kind of like fish.” 

Long before I moved to North Carolina, I had cataract surgery. Because there was a time lag between when each eye needed the surgery, the first surgery was done at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital in Boston, the second at Surgisite Boston, a modern ambulatory surgery center that is used by 70 ophthalmologists from throughout the region, located in Waltham, Massachusetts. Aside from the ease of getting to the site and the available parking, the Surgisite had the most up-to-date equipment and was amazingly efficient (as well as cheaper for my insurance company). There are some medical procedures that can be done very safely outside of a hospital at a much lower cost. Unfortunately CON laws prevent that from happening. CON laws create a very unproductive monopoly.