Thursday, June 30, 2016

Senate Candidate: My name is Darryl Glenn.

My name is Darryl Glenn. I am a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force, and last night I became the Republican nominee for US Senate in Colorado.

...And I am the Democratic Party’s absolutely worst nightmare.

Why is that?

Well, you see, I am a black conservative Republican running for the United States Senate against one of the most vulnerable Democrats in America in 2016. This race is the best chance Republicans have to pick up a seat and keep control of the Senate.
You see, I am a conservative. I believe in defending our borders, cutting our taxes, defending the sanctity of human life, and crushing Radical Islam. (Yes, I’m willing to say it even if our President will not.)

For many years now, the Democrat Party has sold the black community a bill of goods. Every single year, they know they cannot run on their record, so they try to make these campaigns about identity politics.

Well, I am tired of it. They can’t pull that with me. I intend to call the Democrats on their nonsense and hold their feet to the fire. Trust me that terrifies them. ...Because I have had it with the Democrat Party and the extreme liberal activists that run it.

The policies liberals have advocated for the past 30 years have not helped African Americans one bit—they haven’t helped ANY Americans—they’ve helped the liberal elites who run their corrupt party, and they have bankrupted our children. The Democratic Party isn’t the “Party of the little guy” it’s the party of the bosses and the liberal extremists.

White liberals have profited while the black community has been left behind. It’s been 50 years since LBJ’s “Great Society” programs were launched, and yet our poverty rate has stayed the same. Meanwhile, our inner cities are war zones, children are without fathers, we are bankrupt both morally and financially, and America is weaker than ever before.

So-called “black leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used their influence with black people in the Democrat Party in order to gain great personal power with the Democrats. It’s time for a new generation of “black leaders” who are ready to help rebuild America, as the strong, great nation we know it to be.
The fastest way for the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black community to end is to elect leaders who will tell the truth about how the Democrats failed policies have gravely injured the family in America.

They have absolutely expanded the federal government beyond our means to the point that we face a financial meltdown if we keep going like this.

They have crushed job creators.

...And through the Welfare State, they have nearly driven black fathers out of the home by creating an incentive for parents not to stay together. I’m sick of hearing white liberals claim that if you call them out for their failed liberal programs, you’re a racist. It makes my blood boil -- which is part of why I am running.

We’re not going to let them change the subject in this election because they can’t pull that stuff with me. I am going to make them run on their record, and let me tell you, when I do, the people of Colorado aren’t going to like the record that they see.

Think twice when you vote to elect the next president

Think twice when you vote to elect the next president

“Clinton, Warren’s 1-2 punch at Trump” is a classic example of pandering the left wing socialism of Bernie Sanders.

Hillary Clinton championed the Elizabeth Warren and Sanders priorities including “more American manufacturing.” Obviously, these two ladies flunked Economics 101 in school. 

There is not going to be more American manufacturing in the U.S. if they get their wish to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

The fact is the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world, and even higher taxes mean moving more and more jobs out of the U.S. to places with lower corporate taxes. The higher standard of living we enjoy today in the U.S. is a result of free-market capitalism, not socialism. Capitalism works when people with money (the wealthy) invest in companies that hire people.

Poor people don’t create jobs; they depend on the wealthy to provide the capital to create jobs.

It is a real pity that so many people buy into the wealthy Clinton false rhetoric just to get votes knowing that raising taxes suppresses growth and lowering taxes stimulates growth, as has been demonstrated over and over again. 

Even President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, understood this, as did other presidents after him.

Think twice when you vote and understand the positions and the consequences of electing the next president.


Paul W. Bridge Jr., Green Township, Ohio

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Dear fellow Christian and Patriot

Dear fellow Christian and Patriot,

Our nation is reeling. I turn on the news and see Bruce Jenner being celebrated for wearing a dress. Women on Instagram exploiting their bodies for fame. The music industry is selling sex, drug use and explicit language to our children. I see riots in our streets, as men throw rocks at police and vandalize public property. Protesters stomping on and burning Old Glory. I see "race" issues getting worse instead of better. Our kids on college campuses being brainwashed by liberal ideology and thinking socialism would make America better. We have watched millions of babies get aborted each year, gay marriage legalized across this nation, and now bathrooms are no longer separated by sex? Where does it end?

Maybe you feel like it's hopeless to save our nation. In 70 AD, Rome came and sacked Jerusalem. They burned everything to the ground, just as it was foretold by the prophets. But yet a remnant remained.

Today in America, there are still millions and millions of Bible-believing Christians throughout our nation. The homosexual population? Less than 3%. Transgender? Less than .3%!

Too many Christians dismiss political activism when this is the most powerful action Christians can take. God is with you, who can prevail against you?

Why are we scared? We are the MANY, they are the FEW. We need to take back our streets, take back our cities and take back our nation for the Glory of God!

Men and women, I call on you to get on your knees before a Holy and Just God to cry out for your country. God has given us the King that we begged for. We have reaped what we have sowed.

But it's not too late. It may feel like it is, but I assure you, Christian citizen, it is NOT!

We need to visibly show the nation that we are here and we are not going away quietly.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Britain to EU: Good riddance

Britain to EU: Good riddance 

By Cal Thomas

Maybe it was those college courses on the history of Europe that soured me on the idea of a united continent. How could a conglomeration of nation states noted for invading each other, pillaging and warring against each other form a union? How could a continent with different languages, cultures and money become a united states of Europe modeled after the USA?

Unity is not union. As the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed: "European unity has been tried before, and the outcome was far from happy."

The euro, which I also mocked at the time it was introduced on January 1, 1999, replaced the French franc (the Swiss wisely kept their franc), the German mark, the Dutch guilder and most other circulating currencies. Thatcher again: "The European single currency is bound to fail, economically, politically and indeed socially..." How prescient she was.
A majority of British voters literally want their country back. That sentiment was repeated in interviews with average blokes on the BBC and Sky. They are tired of being dictated to by unelected and unaccountable elite in Brussels. They are tired of the waves of immigrants who do not assimilate and seem uninterested in becoming fully British. And they are tired of being called names for wishing to preserve what was handed down to them by previous generations who fought and died so their descendants might continue to enjoy the British way of life.

Even Queen Elizabeth II, who normally remains outwardly neutral on most political issues, appeared to step in on this one. According to Breitbart London reporter Liam Deacon, there are reports that the Queen "thinks European courts that protect Islamist hate preachers 'denigrate' Britain and has demanded that her dinner guests 'Give me three good reasons' to remain inside the European Union."

Already people are comparing former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who led the exit campaign and wants to succeed departing Prime Minister David Cameron, to Donald Trump. Trump had the good fortune and perfect timing to be in Scotland when the voting results were announced. His news conference was carried live throughout Europe and on U.S. cable news networks.

Like so many of the British, Trump supporters are sick of the elites dictating to them. They, too, want their country back and are also weary of the names they are called for wishing to preserve what was handed down to them at the price of blood, sweat and tears (to borrow from Winston Churchill).

Scottish separatists vow to hold another vote because their leader, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, wants to remain in the EU. But the die has been cast. I suspect the EU will eventually fall apart and the nations that currently comprise it could return to their previous borders and currencies, but it is to be hoped not their previous feuds. A status quo ante would be good news for Vladimir Putin, who has viewed a united Europe as an impediment to his plan to restore "greater Russia."

The main lesson for Britain and the U.S. is that the people, properly informed and engaged, don't have to put up with elitist big government whose leaders think they can run people's lives and who callously "import" immigrants from nations that do not have a democratic history, much less practice religious pluralism.


We can take back our countries and make them what the founders intended them to be. Britain is on the way to doing so, though the left will not give up easily, if at all. The other shoe may be about to drop in the U.S. this November.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Brexit Is Part of Internet Reformation Building Around the World

Brexit Is Part of Internet Reformation Building Around the World

By Anthony Wile - founding editor of The Daily Bell

After years of struggle against the EU, which we documented at The Daily Bell, anti-EU forces have finally removed Britain from the European Union.

The tribes of Britain were the first to make the jump back into fuller nationhood. But there will be other countries trying as well. It’s a great day for Britain and a good day for The Daily Bell that has had as one of its main missions analysis of the “Internet Reformation” and the freedom building because of it.

While I am no longer involved in an ownership position with The Daily Bell, I remain proud of our accurate commentaries and predictions.

We saw very early on that the Internet’s truth-telling would change the world.  And despite many negatives and considerable controversy, it certainly has.We’ve published dozens over the years, and much of what we reported is taking place.

We published many interviews that dealt, at least in part, with the EU. I was looking through past Daily Bell issues and found some British interviews. Like The Daily Bell’s statements on the EU, theirs anticipated Brexit.

Lord William Rees-Mogg provided an interview on the EU in 2010, two years before his death. Rees-Mogg, who was president of the Oxford Union in 1951, became a writer for The Financial Times in 1952, moved to The Sunday Times in 1960 and then served as editor of the London Times from 1967 to 1981.

I think the EU will survive but the EU in its present shape probably won’t. The strain the euro is putting on the weaker economies is more than they will be able to sustain
I find that younger people tend to hold increasingly liberalist views. Liberalist is a difficult word because it means different things in different places. In the classical sense, the meaning is that liberty is the essence of sound political structure.

Rees-Mogg certainly predicted what’s going on: “The EU in its present shape won’t survive.”
John Browne, a well-respected financial observer and free-market commentator, is also a distinguished former member of Britain’s Parliament. He was a close associate of the late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Here’s a bit of what he said in 2009:
“The Germans tolerate the stage strutting of the French to offset the British threat …   When she feels more secure, Germany will discard France and rule in a decidedly Prussian manner. It could lift Europe into a top superpower. It could be great for Europe. However, all Europeans who do not speak German as their mother tongue will be second-class citizens …”
Europe is likely to make a futile attempt at becoming a “United States of Europe.” Germany will pick up the pieces, and the EU will become the New German Empire.

Browne knew that Europe’s attempt at becoming a United States of Europe would be futile. (At least, any such integration with Britain would be.) Let’s wait and see if Germany picks up the pieces.

Robert Oulds is the director of the London-based, anti-EU Bruges Group. He is also a Conservative Councilor in Chiswick.
The Bruges Group is working to take Britain out of the European Union … Our independence is our strength allowing us to be free to follow our own policy agenda and put the national interest above party political considerations …
[Our] inspiration was Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech in September 1988, in which she remarked that, “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level.”

Oulds and his group worked hard to remove Britain from the EU and now their hard work has paid off. These folks and many others will surely turn their energy to creating a nation that can prosper as external regulatory chains fall away.

Nigel Farage is head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) since 2010 and is leader of the Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group.
UKIP stands for independence from the EU and the ability to make our own laws and control our own borders … Like Communism, it is a good idea that has gone badly wrong …
The Euro will endure a slow, lingering death that will condemn the euro zone to a lost decade. Getting government spending under control is vital. However, for the southern euro zone devaluation is a higher priority. Competent or not, the euro is fatally flawed.

As we can see, Farage was correct about the euro, certainly for Greece and increasingly for other EU countries, especially in the South.

Farage was a City broker and commodities trader before he joined UKIP – so it’s possible he traded precious metals. If he were trading gold, he might have made a good profit post-Brexit, as gold and silver both went up hard. At the same time, stocks crashed.

From an investment standpoint, investors should be very careful about how they are adjusting their portfolios. The Daily Bell has always advocated holding precious metals in one’s portfolio as a way of securing wealth and ensuring portfolios against uncertain times.

But in the past, I’ve personally made the point that gold and silver stocks are paper, not precious metals.

I’ve pointed out many times that there is a big difference between “paper plays” masquerading as gold and silver and the real thing. Be careful about rushing into the gold and silver stock market anytime soon.

We can see that Brexit offers both promise and problems. In fact, there are globalist forces in the world that may have anticipated this Brexit and even supported it – for malevolent rather than positive reasons.

Much is in flux. There is already speculation that EU officials will try to rewrite the EU-British relationship and then try for another referendum. Additionally, both Scotland and Northern Ireland are unhappy with the results of the referendum and may seek to declare independence.

However the future, unfolds what the Daily Bell calls the Internet Reformation has given a voice to those who wouldn’t have had a voice otherwise. And this voice is causing major changes. I’m confident that the removal of Britain from the EU is part of a larger evolution of freedom and free markets – just as we predicted years ago.
The US, for instance, is in the middle of shedding its dependence on a two-party system that is so homogenized that most can’t tell the difference between candidates. Donald Trump’s presence and campaign is changing all that and whether or not you are a Trump fan, he’s indicative of positive political changes.

Let’s not lose sight of the larger trend: Just as we anticipated, the Internet and related factors are supporting a resurgence of markets and freedom around the world.
Progress is slow and may not be easily noticed. But it’s taking place and surely will continue. I’m proud of our coverage of these serious issues and I’ll be happy to write another article about the accuracy of further predictions. Hopefully I can do that sooner rather than later.


Anthony Wile is founding editor of The Daily Bell.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Immigration then and now!

Immigration then and now!

When examining the facts, Democrats are stuck in the past on immigration and not examining the crucial facts related to modern day immigration.

Then
After the depression of the 1890s, immigration jumped from a low of 3.5 million in that decade to a high of 9 million in the first decade of the new century. Immigrants from Northern and Western Europe continued coming as they had for three centuries, but in decreasing numbers. After the 1880s, immigrants increasingly came from Eastern and Southern European countries, as well as Canada and Latin America. By 1910, Eastern and Southern Europeans made up 70 percent of the immigrants entering the country. After 1914, immigration dropped off because of the war, and later because of immigration restrictions imposed in the 1920s.

The reasons these new immigrants made the journey to America differed little from those of their predecessors. Escaping religious, racial, and political persecution, or seeking relief from a lack of economic opportunity or famine still pushed many immigrants out of their homelands. Many were pulled here by contract labor agreements offered by recruiting agents, known as padrones to Italian and Greek laborers. Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, Bohemians, and Italians flocked to the coal mines or steel mills, Greeks preferred the textile mills, Russian and Polish Jews worked the needle trades or pushcart markets of New York. Railroad companies advertised the availability of free or cheap farmland overseas in pamphlets distributed in many languages, bringing a handful of agricultural workers to western farmlands. But the vast majority of immigrants crowded into the growing cities, searching for their chance to make a better life for themselves.

Immigrants entering the United States who could not afford first or second-class passage came through the processing center at Ellis Island, New York. Built in 1892, the center handled some 12 million European immigrants, herding thousands of them a day through the barn-like structure during the peak years for screening. Government inspectors asked a list of twenty-nine probing questions, such as: Have you money, relatives or a job in the United States? Are you a polygamist? An anarchist? Next, the doctors and nurses poked and prodded them, looking for signs of disease or debilitating handicaps. Usually immigrants were only detained 3 or 4 hours, and then free to leave. If they did not receive stamps of approval, and many did not because they were deemed criminals, strikebreakers, anarchists or carriers of disease, they were sent back to their place of origin at the expense of the shipping line.

For the newcomers arriving without family, some solace could be found in the ethnic neighborhoods populated by their fellow countrymen. Here they could converse in their native tongue, practice their religion, and take part in cultural celebrations that helped ease the loneliness. Often, though, life for all was not easy. Most industries offered hazardous conditions and very low wages--lowered further after the padrone took out his share. Urban housing was overcrowded and unsanitary. Many found it very difficult to accept. An old Italian saying summed up the disillusionment felt by many: "I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, found out three things: First, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved at all: and third, I was expected to pave them." In spite of the difficulties, few gave up and returned home.

When considering the economics of immigration, there are three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. 

First, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. However, by itself a larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives.

Second, there is the fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government. There is general agreement that less-educated, lower-income immigrants are a net fiscal drain; and more-educated, higher-income immigrants are a net fiscal benefit.

Third, there is immigration's effect on the wages and employment opportunities of native-born workers. Basic economic theory predicts that immigration should create a net gain for natives, but to do so it redistributes income from workers in competition with immigrants to workers not in competition and to owners of capital. Theory also predicts that the size of the net gain will be tiny relative to the size of the economy and the size of the redistribution. Because the least educated and poorest Americans are the most likely to be in competition with immigrants, they tend to be the biggest losers from immigration.

Putting aside economic theory, the last 13 years have witnessed an extraordinary situation in the U.S. labor market — all of the employment gains have gone to immigrant workers. This is extremely puzzling since the native-born account for about two-thirds of the growth in the working-age population, and should therefore have received roughly two-thirds of the employment growth. Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants even though natives account for most of the increase in the working-age population.

NOW

Key Findings from Research:
Impact on Aggregate Size of Economy
  • George Borjas , the nation's leading immigration economist estimates that the presence of immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year.
  •  But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.
Impact on Wages and Employment
  • Using the standard to textbook model of the economy, Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration. This benefit is referred to as the immigrant surplus.
  • To generate the surplus of $35 billion, immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion.
  • The standard model predicts that the redistribution will be much larger than the tiny economic gain. The native-born workers who lose the most from immigration are those without a high school education, who are a significant share of the working poor. 
  • The findings from empirical research that tries to examine what actually happens in response to immigration aligns well with economy theory. By increasing the supply of workers, immigration does reduce the wages for those natives in competition with immigrants
  • Economists have focused more on the wage impact of immigration. However, some studies have tried to examine the impact of immigration on the employment of natives. Those that find a negative impact generally find that it reduces employment for the young, the less-educated, and minorities.
Immigrant Gains, Native Losses
  • Recent trends in the labor market show that, although natives account for the majority of population growth, most of the net gain in employment has gone to immigrants. 
  • In the first quarter of 2013, the number of working-age natives (16 to 65) working was 1.3 million fewer than in the first quarter of 2000, while the number of immigrants working was 5.3 million greater over the same period. Thus, all of the employment growth over the last 13 years went to immigrants even though the native-born accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the working age population. 
  • The last 13 years have seen very weak employment growth, whether measured by the establishment survey or the household survey. Over the same time period 16 million new immigrants arrived from abroad. One can debate the extent to which immigrants displace natives, but the last 13 years make clear that large-scale immigration does not necessarily result in large-scale job growth.
Fiscal Impact
  • The National Research Council (NRC) estimated in 1996 that immigrant households (legal and illegal) create a net fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) on all levels of government of between $11.4 billion and $20.2 billion annually. This has not changed.
  •  The NRC also found that the fiscal impact of immigration depends heavily on the education level of the immigrant in question. 
  • At the individual level, excluding any costs for their children, the NRC estimated a net lifetime fiscal drain of -$89,000 (1996 dollars) for an immigrant without a high school diploma, and a net fiscal drain of -$31,000 for an immigrant with only a high school education. However, more educated immigrants create a lifetime net fiscal benefit of +$105,000. 
  • A just-released study from the Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an illegal immigrant used nearly $14,400 more in services than it paid in taxes, for a total fiscal drain of $55 billion. 
  • The Heritage study is absolutely clear that the fiscal costs associated with illegal immigrant households is directly related to their educational attainment. They find that illegal immigrant have on average only 10 years of schooling. 
  • The importance of education. 59 percent of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school access one or more welfare programs, and 70 percent have no federal income tax liability. In contrast, 16 percent of households headed by an immigrant with bachelor's degree access welfare and only 21 percent had no federal income tax liability. 
  • In a study for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level.
  • Illegal immigrants with little education are a significant fiscal drain, but less-educated immigrants who are legal residents are a much larger fiscal problem because they are eligible for many more programs.
For this reason amnesty increases costs in the long run. Heritage's just-released study confirms the finding that amnesty would substantially increase costs over time.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

If we abandon beliefs, we lose war on terrorism

If we abandon beliefs, we lose war on terrorism

As a high school government teacher for the past 15 years, I have found that one of the most difficult concepts for a student to understand is how and why attorneys represent clients accused of horrible crimes. The explanation I offer to students is the concept that the lawyer represents the system and citizens must not fall prey to knee-jerk reactions based upon emotion. The institutions and processes of the U.S. Constitution temper the behavior of man even on their worst day.

After the attack of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando last weekend, our emotions ran high. We demanded immediate answers and desperately searched for the reasons why the killer made the choices he did. Literally, the bodies in Orlando had not been identified when Americans took their respective sides.

My friends on the left laid the banner of blame on the lack of strict gun laws, while my colleagues on the right took immediate issue with the gun control explanation. They found their villain in the form of what certainly has been an underwhelming response to Islamic State by the Obama administration.

Orlando brought with it intensified emotions, the possibility of mankind making decisions on his worst day and Americans siding with different factions in the debate.

The U.S. Senate voted Monday on legislation that would have tightened the rules on the purchase of so-called assault weapons. Whether the law is one that would be “good” or “bad” does not matter. It is the process that led to consideration of the law that should lead to concern. The reaction to the attacks was emotional and came from a populist and grass-roots point of view.

What does a populist reaction look like? Basically, it simplifies difficult and complex problems, identifies a source of those problems and then provides an unsophisticated response. Yes, everyone wants to avoid the next Pulse nightclub. But, what are the costs to the process? Our way of life? What are the trade-offs?

Alexander Hamilton warned us that at times of “heat and violence” people will “gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterward prove fatal to themselves,” and that no man would ever be “able to predict when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction.” In other words, the lifeblood of a faction is passion. That passion often originates in populist responses.

Unwittingly, what the Orlando terrorist created were factions. Despite the fact that he was born in the United States, the killer created factions over the immigration debate. He created factions based upon religion and ethnicity. And, he created factions over the issue of gun control that immediately made their way on to the floor of Congress.

By reactively responding to the attacks through the rhetoric of populism and in a way to “find blame” while reactively examining policies that concern guns, restricting immigration or the investigation of mosques, we are feeding the things that divide us.
Ultimately, that same populist rhetoric and factions it creates has the ability to undermine our liberty. In asking the government to find an immediate answer, we essentially break the bonds that limit the power of the government. In essence, we change the meaning of the Constitution.

When we abandon our beliefs to assuage our emotional pain, we have lost the war on terrorism.

When Robert Kennedy informed an Indianapolis crowd of the slaying of civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he counseled that what the United States needed was “wisdom.”

As we respond to and debate Orlando – or the next attack or the attack after that – let us remember RFK’s call for wisdom and not pursue emotional and populist reactions.
If we react in such a way, we are violating the beliefs of our founders in maintaining a limited government. We cannot let Orlando divide us.


As Americans, we must work together to solve problems and remember that we are, in fact, one nation.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Comparing fast cars to gun control efforts

Comparing fast cars to gun control efforts

Regarding “Guns are tools of war, not recreation” (June 20): The letter from Linda Carberry is a good example of one of the problems we have in this country lately.
She says “A person does not need an AK-47 to shoot targets for fun.
“Get a Nerf!”
Well Ms. Carberry, you do not need a car to get around.
Where do get the idea that you can dictate what someone else needs?
The car industry makes cars that can exceed 200 mph.
But I don’t try to tell someone they can’t have one because I don’t think they need it.
If you feel it is your job to save us all from ourselves, please get to work on the car industry.
If they would limit the maximum speed cars can reach to 15 mph, they could save thousands of lives every year.
They don’t “need” to go any faster.

Hillary: Don’t believe that GOP conducting war on women

Don’t believe that GOP conducting war on women

Regarding Felicia Duncan’s letter to the editor, “Clinton will be perfect as first woman president” (June 16): Go ahead and vote for Hillary Clinton if you like her, but don’t fall victim to the media hype about the so-called Republican war on women.
Take a few hours to read Katie Pavlich’s book, “Assault and Flattery: The Truth about the Left and their War on Women.”
Few people remember that Democrats had to be led, kicking and screaming, to give women the right to vote, or that the first African-American congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin, was a Republican.
From Hollywood to D.C., this eye opening book documents overwhelming examples of liberals’ own war on women.
Furthermore, the media are complicit in this war, silent when they should be outraged on behalf of their victims.
Read this well-documented book to get a look at the other side of the picture before casting your ballot this November.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Orlando: This Is On Obama

Orlando: This Is On Obama

By Bruce Bialosky

Long before the mass murder in Orlando happened, I was in the process of writing this column. Obviously what happened early last Sunday has changed a lot for all of us. But it has not changed the fact of how ISIS has grown and prospered is the responsibility of President Obama more than anyone else, and that needs to be identified and he needs to be held accountable for that.

The impetus for this column was an article in the Wall Street Journal exposing the fact that ISIS fighters are returning to their home countries because they don’t like getting their butts kicked on the battlefield. They also did not find the way the leaders of ISIS treated them was as exciting and as glamorous as they thought it would be while sitting in their living rooms. You can be assured President Obama will be touting the decline in ISIS forces, but they never should have been there in the first place.

Way back when President Obama called ISIS the “JV team,” I and many others were hollering about how foolish that was. It is not because I am a military expert nor do I espouse that I am. But having read enough books on the working of power, I think I know how these things work. You need not have read Sun Tzu or Machiavelli to have questioned the strategy Mr. Obama had adopted. All you needed to have done was follow American sports or possibly sports anywhere to know he was being a fool.

It is called the “bandwagon effect.” True fans of a sports team see this all the time -- particularly ones who have suffered for years. The people of Kansas City have seen this last couple of years; the ones who stuck with the Royals through some miserable years were all of a sudden being crowded out at games by bandwagoners.

In early 2014, ISIS was experiencing many successes and flaunting it with murderous videos. Their successes were being broadcast into our homes and they were spreading them through a sophisticated internet communication system.

I stated they needed to be crushed, and immediately. Obama, the reluctant warrior, refused to do what history had taught us. I even wrote comparing his action to the inactivity of France and Britain in crushing early actions of Hitler that emboldened him to take the next step and then throw the world into war. As Lincoln wrote to General McClellan: “If you don’t want to use the Army I should like to borrow it for a while.” At the time I said: “Please, Mr. President, let me use the greatest military force in world history. I will crush ISIS in the crib and you will thank me.”

Instead he dawdled. Sure he sent some drones in to make selective kills. Those drone strikes killed ISIS leaders, their associates, friends and family. Obama went after the terrorists with no regard for their families and then instructed his press secretary to chastise Donald Trump for calling for actions he was already condoning. And it was so he could avoid actually using the full force of the military we gave him to protect us. It is much easier to sit in a shed somewhere and push a button than confront terror face-to-face.

While Obama fiddled, ISIS grew in power. On the home front, our police (FBI) were fighting the battle attempting to protect us. But when their leader refuses to recognize the existence of the threat and name it as such, you can only imagine how hamstrung our protectors were. The government knew about Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, in San Bernardino. They likewise knew about Omar Mateen.

President Obama rails against guns, but what did he do here in a situation that should have been questioned? Mateen has been on the FBI watch list for some time, but he walked into a gun dealer two weeks ago and bought new guns. He went through a background check. Why was he not questioned? Because the system in place is inept? Or does the government not want to seem anti-Islamic? Instead of confronting the challenge at hand, Mr. Obama blamed law-abiding citizens for having guns and called for new gun laws. He labeled it home grown extremism.

Let’s be clear, Obama had zero desire for the massacre that occurred last week and he holds no responsibility for that particular act. But he has made decisions as to how to confront the evil that bred the horror and for that he is responsible.

Secretary Clinton will be more of the same. Sure she will blow meaningless platitudes our way, but not much will change. She has never called him out for not crushing ISIS. Sure her campaign sent out a cover-your-ass statement expressing sorrow about the event and talking tough, but not telling us how she will be different or expressing dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and his policies. She did state we should do all this while “staying true to our values” which are code words for half-measures. She too labeled it home grown extremism. She wants us to believe this is a hate crime and nothing more.

Mrs. Clinton swears solidarity with women and gays. But she has taken millions into her slush fund charity from governments that abuse and denigrate women and murder gays. How can we trust her to change the policies of the government she endorses and of which she was a big part? Is the Congenital Liar now to be believed? Was Lincoln not true to our values? Was Roosevelt not true to our values? They realized that we are at war and the time for half-measures was over. It has come to our shores; the great oceans can no longer protect us.


Things need to change folks. More of these murders will go on until they do. The sad thing is much of this could have been prevented if Mr. Obama did his job. This in on his head.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

IS THERE A PSYCHOLOGY OF HATE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER?

IS THERE A PSYCHOLOGY OF HATE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER?

BRAIN SCIENTISTS HAVEN’T PINNED DOWN WHY SOME PEOPLE ACT ON THE FEELING

Maria Puente

The Orlando mass murderer was “full of hate,” President Obama says. But lots of Americans are consumed by hate, so what makes one hater unleash violence on hundreds of innocent people in a gay nightclub?

The science of hate is complicated, and there’s not a single definitive answer.

But psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists think American culture is more permeated than ever by hate and hateful expression, and hate-inspired violence is more prevalent.
“We’re seeing more of these kinds of mass attacks than in the past and it’s usually not for just one reason, it’s multi-dimensional,” says Abby Ferber, a professor of sociology at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, who studies hate groups and has written about hate crime in America. “Psychological factors might be one factor but there are other cultural and sociological factors.”

“Anger is always there because it’s a human emotion,” says Liza Gold, a psychiatrist and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University’s medical school in Washington, D.C. “The issue is acting on it.”

In fact, she says, most people filled with hate do not act on it. “They just quietly stew,” she says. “There is interest in the psychology of people who commit violence but we have not yet identified the brain chemical that makes (science) say, ‘This person has too much of neurochemical A.’ ” We’re talking about this, again, because of the deaths of 49 people enjoying Latino Night at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub early Sunday, who were killed by a man using an assault-style weapon before he died in a shootout with police.

The inevitable debate that followed has devolved into a search for blame, stirring up a poisonous goulash of arguments over partisan politics, mental illness, gun control, Islamic bigotry and terrorism; but at the core of it all? Hate.

“Our culture is much angrier, much more hate-filled than ever before, and our politics this year exemplifies that,” says Ferber. “It’s much more acceptable to express anger and act on it, and with access to the Internet, (haters) can find support and applause for their feelings.”
Hate usually comes from “a deeply insecure place” in the human personality, says Harold Koplewicz, a leading child and adolescent psychiatrist and president of the Child Mind Institute in New York.

Hate, he says, can be a symptom of personality disorder most often found among young men in their 20s, an age when the brain’s prefrontal cortex may not be completely developed. Such young men have higher suicide rates, he says. They tend to take risks rather than assess costs. They may be cut off from their families, unsuccessful at work or in school, and angry about it all.

“There is a certain percentage of young adults who feel alienated, who grab hold of a group of haters and say ‘I am part of that group,’ ” Koplewicz says. “Haters like company — it makes them feel better, it justifies their hate. Haters rarely hate alone; they encourage others to hate along with them, they want peer validation.”

Haters usually are people who feel victimized in some way, says Ferber. They feel their culture, religion or lifestyle is threatened. They feel anxious about their masculinity (most recent mass shootings were committed by males). They feel threatened by visible cultural change, such as growing acceptance of gay people. They feel victimized by economic insecurity.

What’s different now, says Gold, is haters’ ability to connect with others.
“Before social media, people had to work harder to find each other, now they don’t,” Gold says. “It’s much easier to hold a bizarre idea if you see all these other people believe it, too. There is a mob psychology to this: Social media provides the mob.”
Can hate-turned-to-violence be predicted through brain science? Not yet.

Neuroscientists have made progress in understanding more about brain function but there’s still a ways to go in understanding hate and violent anger, says Cameron Craddock, director of imaging for the Center for the Developing Brain at the Child Mind Institute.


“We have not yet figured out what parts or structures of the brain are different in people who have a psychiatric disorder,” says Craddock. In one brain-scan experiment, people were asked to look at pictures of people they hate and pictures of people they don’t hate, to see which areas of the brain were engaged.

There’s no evidence that gun laws stop killings

There’s no evidence that gun laws stop killings

I just received a newsletter email from one of the U.S. senators. In it, he called for everyone to come together and stand united, which I agree with. We are all Americans. The people killed in Orlando were Americans. For me, the other things that make us different are secondary to what makes us one – we are Americans.

Then, he went on to say, “It is also past time to finally muster the political courage to say enough is enough and pass common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and violent criminals.”

Does anyone have a law that has successfully kept guns out of the hands of terrorists and violent criminals? Can you please send me a link to it? Will that link take me to the gun laws of Chicago where hundreds of innocent people are killed by criminals with guns every year? Will it take me to the gun laws in France (Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo)?

Or, would it take me to the gun laws of the five countries that have had more mass shootings than the U.S. – Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland?

What are we trying to accomplish? What evidence is there that gun laws have successfully stopped criminals from killing people? Would it be better if Orlando looked more like Boston or Brussels than San Bernadino or Paris?

We are all Americans. A radical Jihadist killed Americans with guns. Millions of American gun owners did not.


Will I start waiting for the law someone has that keeps guns out of the hands of terrorists and violent criminals? I’m still waiting for my annual $2,500 check for the health care cost savings Obama promised with Obamacare. 

Friday, June 17, 2016

More disturbing facts about the Orlando shooter: not opinion.

Records paint disturbing background of Orlando shooter

Mateen disciplined dozens of times for unruly, aggressive behavior

Elliott Jones and Andrew Atterbury
Omar Mateen’s behavioral problems began early in his school years. As an adult, working as a private security guard, his comments on the Fort Hood shooter worried the sheriff so much; he was transferred from his post at a courthouse. Mateen’s elementary and middle school records paint the Orlando nightclub shooter as a disruptive student who struggled with English. His behavior — marked by constant outbursts and classroom insubordination — greatly contributed to his academic struggles, according to the documents. “The main factor prohibiting Omar from success in school is not that the work is too hard but rather his difficulties in conforming to class/ school rules,” according to a letter sent to Mateen’s father shortly before he withdrew from St. Lucie County’s Southport Middle School in 1999. Mateen, who on Sunday killed 49 people and injured 53 at an Orlando nightclub, bounced around St. Lucie County campuses from kindergarten until 1999, when he transferred to the Martin County Schools District in eighth grade.

He was disciplined 31 times between 1992 and 1999 for numerous disruptions, for striking a student and for disrespectful behavior during his time in St. Lucie County schools, according to documents obtained exclusively by TCPalm.com.

As early as third grade, Mateen was verbally abusive, rude and aggressive, according to the documents obtained by TCPalm.com. He talked frequently of violence and obscenities, documents revealed.

In December 1995, while in fourth grade, Mateen was referred to a student study team — comprising a teacher, psychologist, guidance counselor and parent — for continuing to hit students, talking out in class and screaming at teachers and fellow students.
In 2013, Mateen, then 26, was working as a private security guard for G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. at the St. Lucie County Courthouse in Fort Pierce.

Mateen made many inflammatory comments at the courthouse in 2013, including a statement that Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Nidal Hasan was justified in killing 13 people and injuring more than 30 in 2009, Sheriff Ken Mascara said Wednesday. That mass shooting took place Nov. 5, 2009. Hasan was an Army major and psychiatrist.

Mateen also made derogatory remarks about women and Jews, the sheriff said. “That sent red flags to my staff and me, and the FBI was immediately notified,” he said. The FBI investigated Mateen but could not conclude he had leanings toward terrorism.


The sheriff’s courthouse supervisor then requested that G4S transfer Mateen out of the courthouse rotation permanently.

Clinton’s Ohio ads falsely portray her as a CHIP advocate:

Clinton’s Ohio ads falsely portray reason for  CHIP:


A major focus of the Clinton ads is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which shares the cost with states for insuring low-income children and where she claims to have as a champion of CHIP.


Hillary Clinton’s first television campaign ads in Ohio portray her as an advocate for children. However, she is not telling the truth. Two of the ads show a softer side of the presumptive Democratic nominee, emphasizing lesser known parts of her biography that include championing a children’s health care program that passed while she was first lady.

In Cincinnati, the Clinton campaign has purchased airtime on WCPO and WLWT, according to filings with the Federal Communications Commission compiled by the Sunlight Foundation.

A major focus of the Clinton ads is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which shares the cost with states for insuring low-income children. In the 1990s, Clinton had failed in her effort to overhaul the health care system with an effort nicknamed “Hillarycare,” but Congress did pass the smaller CHIP program in 1997. In Ohio, 136,000 children received coverage through CHIP in 2013-14, the most recent year with data available through the Kaiser Family Foundation.

But Clinton had little to do with the creation of CHIP, the Republican National Committee said in a statement.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who helped lead negotiations on the program, in 2008, told The Washington Post Hillary was not involvement in writing or debating the bill.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

What you did not learn about the 10th Amendment but must know!

HISTORY OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT AND HOW IT APPLIES TODAY



The foundation of the 10th amendment dates back to the very first immigrants into our Country. The first to seek refuge in the new world were religious dissidents seeking freedom to worship as they saw fit. In England, the law demanded the citizens to be members of the Church of England. No other religion was tolerated, which drove Puritans along with other Christian faiths and those who practiced the Jewish faith. 

The first of the Northern Colonies to be settled was the Massachusetts Bay Colony, while in the South Virginia. As more immigrated to the new world, those colonizing the South based their economies on agriculture that required were labor intensive; while those in the North due to the shorter growing season, based their economy on commerce that would eventually lead to the industrial side.

Of the original 13 Colonies, three separate types had been created by King George; the first type being crown colonies that were entirely ruled by England. The Second and most abundant were the proprietor colonies, where leaders were chosen among the British royalty who had been sent by the King, by those who owned and operated various businesses. Finally, were simply known as Charter Colonies. These were the ones who had established their own territories and then submitted a charter consisting of territorial boundaries and the type of government to be instituted. 

Since England was involved with territorial disputes between England and Spain. For the most part the Colonies were self-governing, with exception to the crown colonies. Since each colony had its own government that was self-ruled. The only thing the colonies had in common was commerce; otherwise they considered themselves sovereign nations.

Once England had come up with compromises with Spain and France, they tried to take complete control over the colonies. England had invested a great deal of money, providing for the needs of the colonies, during the early days and has expected to simply walk in and take control.

By this time each of the colonies had already set up their form of government and resisted British control, seeing more as an intrusion than anything else. As the British placed more pressure on the colonies to comply with British rule, the more the colonies refused to comply.

By this time uprising began to occur with those loyal to the crown looked at those rebelling to be more of a problem than a solution. Over the next fifty years the Patriot movement had established themselves and was in constant conflicts with the British. 

By the time of the stamp act and Boston Massacre, the roots to the revolution were already in place. No longer were the Patriots, only farmers but prominent people in society agreed with what they stood for. 
The colonies knew that alone, none could take on the British alone, so they began meeting in local taverns then communicate among themselves through commerce or simply passing the word, until all colonies were informed. At this point uprisings and battles were becoming more of the norm than anything else. Half of the citizens remained loyal to the crown, while the other half were after severing all ties with England. 

This led to the creation of the Colonial Government. By 1775 the Colonies agreed the only way to win their independence, was to declare a collective Declaration for Independence. By July 4th 1776 fifty-four representatives from all thirteen colonies had signed the declaration which was sent to King George III. The Signing of the Declaration of Independence was the official creation of our Union. At this point the Colonies had no intention of creating a new country. The Colonies only goal was the return to being self-governing, with as small of a centralized Government as possible.

On July 12, 1776 The Second Continental Congress was formed who would be the formal Government. Back in 1776 the term “Congress” was different than today, during this period in time congress meant representative, Thus the Second Continental Congress was viewed as a group of representatives from the thirteen Colonies.

The British finally granted the establishment of the United States of America. The Second Continental Congress knew they needed a formal Constitution. A Panel was created by the congress to create The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. As with most documents created by autonomist states, there was much debate on how to work together without creating a centralized Government that could seize control over all of the States.

By the end of 1777 the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union were complete and sent to the thirteen colonies for ratification. Even before the Articles of Confederation was ratified it gave The Continental Congress a means of directing the Revolutionary War. Article I establish the name of the Union to be called the United States of America. While Article II asserted that all States would maintain sovereignty and self-governing power. The remaining three articles ascertained an agreement of cooperation and friendship between the states with all legal citizens having the ability to move freely throughout the country; while the Federal Government would have very limited powers over the union. Not long after creating the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union was simply inadequate. Once again the Continental Congress created a panel of representatives to create a more suitable Constitution. 

As the representatives headed for the Constitutional Convention in 1778, none of the Representatives had intentions of creating a new Constitution, believing they would simply add what was needed to the Articles of Confederation where they could address the deficiencies of the existing Articles. 
After a month of deliberations and arguments it became apparent that the Articles of Confederation could never meet the requirements needed to create a functional Union. This stalemate continued as the delegates fought over how to create a viable Constitution. This led the eldest statesman Benjamin Franklin to request that he could address the delegates of the convention.

Franklin was in his mid-eighties at the time as he addressed the delegates. His now famous address called for Prayer before every session of congress to be led by different members of the clergy. This address proved to be exactly what was needed. 

The biggest concern in creating this new constitution was giving the Federal Government too much power. They had just fought a revolution to obtain their own sovereignty. So they had no desire to create a centralized Government who had too much power.

All of the delegates agreed that a Federal Government was required to meet the needs of the States, beyond that the new country wanted to maintain state sovereignty.

During the ratification process, several states had refused to ratify the constitution feared the Federal Government held enough power to take control over the states and without amendments to address their concerns, they refused to ratify the Constitution. After the Bill of Rights was created with the freedom to establish more amendments when needed, Ratification of the Constitution went into effect in 1789.

Of the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson being an anti-federalist believed the tenth amendment to be the foundation to the constitution.
The tenth amendment states that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, while maintaining their power jurisdiction, and rights, that were not expressly covered under the Constitution.”

Prior to the creation of the Bill of rights, concerns over state sovereignty, even though Federalist #45 submitted by James Madison on January 26, 1788, where James Madison assured that a state’s sovereignty would not be violated. In addition the articles of confederation would act as a failsafe should State sovereignty ever be challenged.

Unfortunately in spite of all the attempts made by our forefathers to protect State sovereignty, the wording in the tenth amendment left too many areas that could be exploited by the Federal Government.

At the time of the writing of the Bill of rights power was given to congress through Article VI Section II known as the supremacy clause. That stated the laws contained in the Constitution was the supreme Law of the land and the law shall rule even if it conflicts with State Laws.

The first attack on our States sovereignty came with the Alien and Sedition Act passed by congress in 1789. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison claimed Government over-reach. Though debatable, this would prove to be the first of many attacks by the Federal Government and our 10th amendment. Of the three branches of Government, the Supreme Court has led the way in taking away our state’s sovereignty, beginning with McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819). This case though in appearance does not seem unreasonable. This ruling would enable the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided under the Constitution, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution. This single ruling paved the way for the Federal Government to essentially obtain supreme power over the entire government, including the constitution and Bill of Rights

Though our forefathers did everything they could to ensure the Sovereignty of our States. It was the way the 10th amendment was worded that gave the Supreme Court a means to exploit the wording that would give the Federal Government supreme power over the Constitution of the United States of America. Supreme Court justice John Marshal is therefore to blame for our states losing the power to self-govern. 

Today not only is our 10th amendment rights in jeopardy due to this single ruling, the entire constitution along with the Bill of Rights and every subsequent amendment. Though the assured Sovereignty of the states can be argued by referring to the Articles of Confederation and Federalist #45, the Court has elected to ignore the federalist papers and articles of confederation.

Until Congress is willing to address McCulloch vs. Maryland and rules that this case is in violation of the Constitution, the Federal Government will continue to eliminate our rights while dismantling The Constitution of the United States of America.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Again thank you for your time and may God Bless all of you, especially those who believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 GOD BLESS AMERICA

ShareThis