All mail in Voting or In Person?

 

Some folks are wondering why having “all mail in voting” is so contentious?

 

I say it is because the we have two sides that are unable to agree on much of anything. So, on something as grand as the next president why should we be surprised? We hear shrill comments from both for and against the process. Problem is there is some merit to both.

 

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a report in September that urged all states to adopt paper ballots before 2020. Why is paper best for verifying election outcomes?

 

The idea of a post-election paper audit is a form of quality control. You want to have people inspect enough of the paper records to confirm with high statistical probability that the outcome on the paper and the outcome on the electronic results is the same. You’re basically doing a random sample. How large a sample you need depends on how close the election result was. If it was a landslide, a very small sample—maybe even just a few hundred random ballots selected from across the state—could be enough to confirm with high statistical confidence that it was indeed a landslide. But if the election result was a tie, well, you need to inspect every ballot to confirm that it was a tie.

 

The key insight behind auditing as a cyber defense is that if you have a paper record that the voter got to inspect, then that can’t later be changed by a cyber attack. The cost to do so is relatively low. My estimate is it would cost about $25 million a year to audit to high confidence every federal race nationally.

 

Widespread voting by mail poses risks of disenfranchising voters, delaying election results?

Expanding vote-by-mail systems takes an immense amount of equipment, time, staff and funding, yet some want to impose universal vote-by-mail mandates on every state this fall. It has taken Washington state nearly a decade to navigate the complications of expanding vote by mail to every voter. Waving a wand from D.C. cannot change existing nationwide election infrastructure in a matter of months — nor should it.

Widespread voting by mail also risks severely delayed election results. Processing mail ballots is time consuming, particularly in states that have low levels of voting by mail. Due to the large number of mail ballots, California counted votes for over a month after the Democratic primary this spring. California legislators now want ballots to be counted even if received 17 days after the election!

Finally, mail voting is less secure than in-person voting. Voters, particularly in vulnerable populations such as the poor or the elderly, can be coerced to yield their ballots because there is no ballot secrecy. Voters’ ballots can be lost, delayed or thrown out by election officials without the voter knowing.

All Americans deserve an election system that is easy to access, secure and final. Instead, many states offer bloated rolls that include millions of ineligible voters; tabulation of ballots that takes weeks instead of hours; and with ballot harvesting, substantially increase the risk that ballots are coerced from voters, misdirected or completed fraudulently.

Until states bring their election systems up to date and make them secure, automatic vote by mail will continue to pose significant risks of election fraud, delay and lack of finality.

Simply said, we are suffering from an issue of trust; both people and the system.

Simple Americans simply want their vote to count. The hysteria whipped up by the media has NOT assured anyone their vote will be counted or thwarted in some way. All Americans want to feel secure that winners are truly winners and not the product of a failed process.

Get to know Kamala Harris!

 So what does Kamala Harris actually stand for?

→ Immigration: Like most liberals, Sen. Harris wants to “reexamine” ICE, saying the country should consider “starting from scratch” with the immigration agency. She also supports decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

→ Police: Sen. Harris’s view of law enforcement is still somewhat murky, but it’s not positive. When asked about defunding the police, she called for “reimagining how we do public safety in America.” Earlier this summer, she told The New York Times: "It is status-quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. That's wrong. It's just wrong." She also applauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s plan to slash police funding by $150 million.

→ Abortion: National Review calls Sen. Harris “the most radically pro-abortion candidate to run for president or vice president in the history of our country.” She cosponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would override state’s restrictions on abortion by requiring states to get “preclearance” from the federal government and would destroy states’ rights.

→ Energy/Jobs: Sen. Harris planted herself squarely with the far left of the party, endorsing the Green New Deal and sponsoring an “equity plan” for climate change with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She would also ban all fracking, killing millions of jobs in the process.

→ Health Care: During the presidential campaign, Sen. Harris sponsored Bernie Sanders’ version of socialized medicine, AKA—Medicare for All, before she backed away from it. She also cavalierly called for abolishing private insurance, saying, “Let’s eliminate all of that.” (She has since “clarified” that position.)

→ Executive Power: As a presidential candidate, Sen. Harris promised to use executive power to sidestep Congress and implement her liberal agenda. The list includes restricting gun rights, legalizing illegal immigrants, and implementing equal pay. 
 
Sen. Harris is now competing for the second most important job in this country. Her liberal positions on the biggest issues facing America matter, and they deserve to be studied and questioned. 

A CANADIAN'S VIEW OF PRESIDENT TRUMP

Ernie Meggisen, a Canadian, wrote the following on Donald J. Trump...
 
Make no mistake...I'm not posting this for debate.  I don’t want your
commentary.   ..Unfollow or unfriend me if it makes you feel better.
 
Just consider this...  When you think    that your    President Trump is a
jerk; HE IS...
 
He’s a New Yorker..  He’s crude and can be downright rude.  Some say he's a thin-skinned, arrogant, bombastic ass.  ..No argument, even from most republicans if they're really honest.
 
He gets his feelings hurt and he’s a hot head. ..He hits back; harder.
...And he probably should Tweet less.
 
But let me tell you what else he is...And if you disagree with this that's
your privilege.  ..But in that case my friend, you'd be DEAD WRONG!!!  ..And here's why;
 
He's a guy who DEMANDS performance. ..And more    importantly; RESULTS!!  He spent his entire life in the private sector where you either produce or get your ass fired!
 
He's a guy who asks lots of questions. ..And the questions he asks aren’t cloaked in fancy “political” phrases; they are “Why the hell...?” questions.

 
For decades, the health industry has thrown away billions of face masks after one use. ...Trump asks, “Why are we throwing them away?  Why not sterilize them and use them numerous times?” (Good question.)
 
He’s the guy who gets hospital ships readied in one week when it would have taken a bureaucrat weeks or months or never to get it done.
 
He’s the guy who gets temporary hospitals built in three days.
 
He’s the guy who gets auto industries to restructure to build ventilators in a business that’s highly regulated by agencies that move like sloths.
 
He’s the guy who asks “Why aren’t we using drugs that might work on people who are dying; what the hell do we have to lose?” (Another good question.)
 
He’s the guy who restricted travel from China when the democrats and liberal media were screaming “xenophobia” and “racist.”  ..Now they’re wanting to know why he didn’t react sooner?  When he shut down the borders in the early days of the corona virus, the democrats screamed even LOUDER.  ..Then the rest of the world, including the European Union quickly restricted travel between their own member countries.
 
He’s the guy who campaigned on securing the border - protecting America - in the face of screaming democrats and the liberal media. ...And these SAME leaders of your democrat party (both the Clintons, Chucky Schumer, Harry Reed, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi et al...)  ALL were in FAVOR of constructing the wall 'UNTIL' Trump had the fortitude to actually do it!!!  
 
Now your comeback might be:  'Oh, he said Mexico was going to pay for it'..  Does that ring a bell?  Well, let me quickly set you straight on this one: Have you compared the old EXTREMELY one-sided NAFTA agreement (negotiated by none other than Jimmy 'peanuts' Carter) with the NEW U.S.M.C. agreement?  Well I have...And let me tell you this:  Mexico will now end up paying much MORE for your goods than you will for theirs...And why you might ask??  Because they're far more    reliant    on the U.S than you are of them.  Yes, it will take time but the bottom line is;...They WILL end up paying for the wall just like Trump said all along!  .Admittedly as a Canadian, this new USMCA is certainly not as beneficial as NAFTA was for both my country and Mexico.  Previously our farmers had a huge monopoly over your farmers
but 'fair is fair'...
 
Has Trump made mistakes? ..Of course.  You can't fault a person for being a human being.  Only ONE perfect man walked this earth 2000 years ago, Jesus!
 
Everyone I know has made mistakes and continues to make them and LEARNS from them.  
 
Trump is and has accomplished more than any U.S. President in my lifetime. (I'm 77 years old)  ..He puts in 18 to 20-hour days. He isn’t hiding in his office; he’s out front - Briefing - ALL Americans almost every day.
 
According to democrats and liberal media, when he offers hope he’s lying, and when he’s straight forward he should be hopeful. It’s a no-win situation for him every day with the haters and naysayers, but he is NOT deterred.
 
I’ll take THIS kind of leadership 6 days a week and TWICE on Sunday over a “polished, nice guy” politician who has seldom or never held a real private sector job in his or her adult life, reads prepared and “written by a speech-writer” speeches from a teleprompter and ONLY answers pre-scripted questions selected for him/her prior to the open forum.  (Sorry folks, but that's EXACTLY what your previous POTUS did.)
 
I am completely mystified as to why this man has been bombarded by the media and liberal electorate EVERY day since back in 2015 when he announced his run for the U.S. presidency.  
 
...And whether you want to believe it or not, Americans, let me tell you one more thing, if you REALLY think that Hillary would have accomplished even a fraction of the things for the betterment of the American public that POTUS Trump has, you've really got your head in the sand.
 
I can only wish he was MY President! - For the good of America, you'd better hope he's re-elected this November.
 
I DO!!!

Communist concept of human rights and legal systems

Communist concept of human rights and legal systems

According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled.", including the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

The Communist conception of human rights was very different from conceptions in the West. Communist legal theory, "it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the individual", whereas Western law claimed the opposite. The Communist state was considered as the source of human rights. Therefore, Communist legal systems regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government. Extensive judicial powers are given to Communist police agencies. Communist regimes abolish Western rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law and guarantees of property which were considered as examples of "bourgeois morality" by the Communist theorists. According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of socialist courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle".

Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Communist state and society. For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death. Some Communist legal scholars even assert that "criminal repression" may be applied in the absence of guilt. “Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Communist with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession.”

The purpose of Communist public trials was "not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime – that was predetermined by the appropriate party authorities – but to provide yet another forum for political agitation and propaganda for the instruction of the citizenry. Defense lawyers, who had to be party members, were required to take their client's guilt for granted "!!

Freedom of political expression

Political repression is practiced by the Communist police services. An extensive network of civilian informants – either volunteers, or those forcibly recruited – are used to collect intelligence for the government and report cases of suspected dissent.

Communist political repression is a routine system of persecution and prosecution of people who are or perceived to be enemies of the Communist System.

Freedom of literary and scientific expression

Censorship under Communism is pervasive and strictly enforced. Art, literature, education, and science Are placed under strict ideological scrutiny, since people are supposed to serve the interests of the victorious Regine. Socialist realism is an example of such teleologically-oriented art that promoted socialism and communism. All humanities and social sciences are tested for strict accordance with historical Communist materialism.

All natural sciences are to be founded on the philosophical base of materialism. Many prominent scientists were [early in the purge] declared to be "wreckers" or enemies of the people and imprisoned.

Right to vote

According to Communist ideologists, the Communist Political system is considered a true democracy, where workers' councils represent the will of the working class. However, all candidates are selected by Communist Party organizations.

Economic rights

Personal property is allowed with certain limitations. Real property belongs to the State. Health, housing, education, and nutrition were guaranteed through the provision of full employment and economic welfare structures implemented in the workplace. However, these guarantees are not always met in practice.

Freedoms of assembly and association

Freedom of assembly and of association are severely limited. Workers are not allowed to organize free trade unions for example. All existing trade unions were organized and controlled by the Communist State. All political youth organizations serve to enforce the policies of the Communist Party. Participation in non-authorized political organizations could result in imprisonment.

Freedom of religion

The Communist Regimes promote atheism. Toward that end, Communist regimes [in the early years] confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagate atheism in schools. Atheism was propagated through communist organizations, and the media. Organizations such as the Society of the Godless were created.

Freedom of movement

Emigration and any travel abroad are not allowed without an explicit permission from the government. People who are not allowed to leave the country. According to the Communist Criminal Codes, a refusal to return from abroad was treason, punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10–15 years, or death with confiscation of property.

Human rights movement

Human rights activists are regularly subjected to harassment, repressions and arrests. Or, a complete shutdown of the movement's activities. Communist countries have abstained from affirming the 1948 U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citing its "overly juridical" character as well as the infringements on national sovereignty.

The 10 Myths of Socialism

The 10 Myths of Socialism

With the help of freedom-loving patriots from across the country, we must persuasively deliver the message that socialism is a failure to a whole generation of Americans who did not see the Wall come down and were not eye witnesses to the tyranny and oppression of socialism.

We must vigorously remind Americans that the free market system is the best way to create rewarding jobs and opportunity. Socialism is a bad idea. 

University officials effectively shut down a “cemetery of innocents” display at the Miami University Campus in Hamilton, Ohio

University officials effectively shut down a “cemetery of innocents” display at the Miami University Campus in Hamilton, Ohio

Students sue over ‘pro-life’ protest at Miami University

Miami University students filed a lawsuit against their school’s president, trustees and other administrators over a “pro-life” protest. Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the students against Miami claiming the university violated the student's free speech rights.

Since 2015, the student group has set up a display of crosses on the university’s Central Quad to commemorate the lives lost to abortion, along with an explanatory sign.

This fall, the university officials refused to approve the display unless the students agreed to post warning signs around campus with a “trigger warning” that urged people not to view it. Officials feared the pro-life display might cause “emotional trauma” for some viewers and this would help those individuals “better protect and manage their emotional reactions to the display.”

 “No university official has the authority to censor student speech simply because of how someone might respond to it,” Travis Barham, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said.

 Barham said public university administrators have an obligation to respect students’ free speech rights and, under the First Amendment, “can’t impose trigger warnings that restrict what some students can say to spare the feelings of others.”

The university has the authority to grant or deny any student group’s request to conduct an exhibit on campus. Students ask for a permit at least seven business days in advance, explain the message and purpose of their exhibit and agree to let university officials edit the display as they see fit. This “sweeping authority” allows administrators to deny permits for any reason and to control students’ messages by imposing specific conditions for approval.

Slavery not ‘peculiar institution’ affecting only Western world

Slavery not ‘peculiar institution’ affecting only Western world

Too many people believe that slavery is a “peculiar institution.” That’s what Kenneth Stampp called slavery in his book, “Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South.” But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd or unusual. It was common among ancient peoples such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only after A.D. 1600 that Europeans joined with Arabs and Africans and started the Atlantic slave trade. As David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, “The Globalist,” “The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom.”

While slavery constitutes one of the grossest encroachments on human liberty, it is by no means unique or restricted to the Western world or United States, as many liberal academics would have us believe. Much of their indoctrination of our young people paints our nation’s founders as racist adherents to slavery, but the story is not so simple.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, slaves were about 40 percent of the population of the Southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections would be based upon population. Southern delegates to the convention wanted slaves to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to slavery, wanted only free persons of each state to be counted for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The compromise reached was that each slave would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.

Many criticize this compromise as proof of racism. My question to these grossly uninformed critics is whether they would have found it more preferable for slaves to be counted as whole persons. Slaves counted as whole persons would have given slaveholding Southern states much more political power. Or, would the critics of the founders prefer that the Northern delegates not compromise and not allow slaves to be counted at all. If they did, it is likely that the Constitution would have not been ratified. Thus, the question is whether blacks would be better off with Northern states having gone their way and Southern states having gone theirs, resulting in no U.S. Constitution and no Union? Unlike today’s pseudointellectuals, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was “a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states” that deprived them of “two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.”

Douglass’ vision was shared by Patrick Henry and others. Henry said, expressing the reality of the three-fifths compromise, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” With this union, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade by 1808. According to delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.” Many of the founders abhorred slavery. 

The most unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive elimination efforts. It was Britain’s military sea power that put an end to the slave trade. And our country fought a costly war that brought an end to slavery. Unfortunately, these facts about slavery are not in the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. Instead, there is gross misrepresentation and suggestion that slavery was a uniquely American practice.

Walter E. Williams is an economist at George Mason University.

1943 Air Heroism

1943 Air Heroism

I consider it such a remarkable accounting of perseverance, bravery and all out miracle.

This is really incredible as well as outstanding!

B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) Crew: 
Pilot- Ken Bragg Jr. 
Co-pilot- G. Boyd Jr. 
Navigator- Harry C. Nuessle 
Bombardier- Ralph Burbridge 
Engineer- Joe C. James 
Radio Operator- Paul A. Galloway 
Ball Turret Gunner- Elton Conda 
Waist Gunner- Michael Zuk 
Tail Gunner- Sam T. Sarpolus 
Ground Crew Chief- Hank Hyland 

In 1943 a mid-air collision on February 1, 1943, between a B-17 and a German fighter over the Tunis dock area, became the subject of one of the most famous photographs of WW II.

An enemy fighter attacking a 97th Bomb Group formation went out of control, probably with a wounded pilot, then continued its crashing descent into the rear of the fuselage of a Flying Fortress named "All American", piloted by Lt. Kendrick R. Bragg, of the 414th Bomb Squadron.

When it struck, the fighter broke apart, but left some pieces inside the B-17. 

The left horizontal stabilizer of the Fortress and left elevator were completely torn away. The two right engines were out and one on the left had a serious oil pump leak.

The vertical fin and the rudder had been damaged, the fuselage had been cut almost completely through, connected only at two small parts of the frame, and the radios, electrical and oxygen systems were damaged.

There was also a hole in the top that was over 16-feet long and 4 feet wide at its widest; the split in the fuselage went all the way to the top gunner's turret.

Although the tail actually bounced and swayed in the wind and twisted when the plane turned and all the control cables were severed, except one single elevator cable still worked, the aircraft miraculously still flew!

The tail gunner was trapped because there was no floor connecting the tail to the rest of the plane. The waist and tail gunners used parts of the German fighter and their own parachute harnesses in an attempt to keep the tail from ripping off and the two sides of the fuselage from splitting apart.

While the crew was trying to keep the bomber from coming apart, the pilot continued on his bomb run and released his bombs over the target. 

 When the bomb bay doors were opened, the wind turbulence was so great that it blew one of the waist gunners into the broken tail section. It took several minutes and four crew members to pass him ropes from parachutes and haul him back into the forward part of the plane.

When they tried to do the same for the tail gunner, the tail began flapping so hard that it began to break off. The weight of the gunner was adding some stability to the tail section, so he went back to his position.

The turn back toward England had to be very slow to keep the tail from twisting off. They actually covered almost 70 miles to make the turn home.

The bomber was so badly damaged that it was losing altitude and speed and was soon alone in the sky. 

For a brief time, two more Me-109 German fighters attacked the All American.  Despite the extensive damage, all of the machine gunners were able to respond to these attacks and soon drove off the fighters. The two waist gunners stood up with their heads sticking out through the hole in the top of the fuselage to aim and fire their machine guns. The tail gunner had to shoot in short bursts because the recoil was actually causing the plane to turn.

 

 

Allied P-51 fighters intercepted the All American as it crossed over the Channel and took one of the pictures shown. They also radioed to the base describing that the appendage was waving like a fish tail and that the plane would not make it and to send out boats to rescue the crew when they bailed out. The fighters stayed with the Fortress, taking hand signals from Lt. Bragg and relaying them to the base. Lt. Bragg signaled that 5 parachutes and the spare had been "used" so five of the crew could not bail out.  He made the decision that if they could not bail out safely, then he would stay with the plane to land it. 

 

 Two and a half hours after being hit, the aircraft made its final turn to line up with the runway while it was still over 40 miles away. It descended into an emergency landing and a normal roll-out on its landing gear.

 

When the ambulance pulled alongside, it was waved off because not a single member of the crew had been injured. 

No one could believe that the aircraft could still fly in such a condition. 

The Fortress sat placidly until the crew all exited through the door in the fuselage and the tail gunner had climbed down a ladder, at which time the entire rear section of the aircraft collapsed.

 This old bird had done its job and brought the entire crew home uninjured. 

Obamacare Insurer Bailouts

Repeal and Replace Obamacare now!

Obamacare Insurer Bailouts: In an effort to win the support of health insurance companies during the debate over Obamacare, three “risk mitigation” provisions, also known as bailouts, were written into the bill to compensate health insurance companies for insuring high-cost consumers. These three bailouts include risk corridors, reinsurance, and cost-sharing subsidies.

The reinsurance provision, in particular, is the subject of the latest controversy surrounding Obamacare. As written, the reinsurance provision requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to collect, from 2014-16, $25 billion in “assessments” or taxes on employer-provided health-insurance plans and:

1.)    Reimburse the U.S. Treasury, i.e. taxpayers $5 billion for operating costs and then

2.)    Bail out health insurance companies. These assessments should be repealed along with the rest of Obamacare, but so long as they are current law, the resulting revenue should not be used to bail out insurance companies.

Instead of following the law, HHS illegally prioritized health insurance companies over taxpayers. This year, health insurance companies are set to receive $15.7 billion in bailouts while taxpayers will only receive $500 million of the $4 billion they are currently owed. Even the Congressional Research Service (CRS) acknowledges this action as a clear violation of law.

In an effort to stop the HHS from continuing to break the law, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Representative Mark Walker (R-NC) introduced the Taxpayers Before Insurers Act (S. 2803 and H.R. 5904). If passed, this bill would “penalize HHS for illegally prioritizing big insurance companies ahead of taxpayers through the Affordable Care Act’s reinsurance program” by cutting “50 percent of HHS’s general department management fund unless the Secretary of HHS pays the full amount taxpayers are owed.

Obamacare has increased insurance premiums, raised taxes, restricted choice, and made hardworking Americans lose their doctors and health care plans, yet the Obama administration is dedicated to bailing out insurance companies. Obamacare must be fully repealed, but in the meantime, Congress should shut down the current avenues to bail out the insurance companies.

A Day To Read: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

JULY 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the

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.