And with the wave of the hand – Trump ‘s election is secured.
Did you watch the Democrat debates? I tried to get through it all but only survived the first 45 minutes or so of each debate, the “A” list debate and the “B” list debate. These debates may have driven the last nail in the coffin for any chance for a Democrat to win the election against Trump. I did call a Trump historical landslide at least a year ago for the 2020 election in one of these weekly posts, but as the President said on Twitter the other day in response to the whether or not the candidates would provide illegal aliens with unlimited healthcare, “All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first? That’s the end of that race!” – Donald Trump on Twitter. Yup-lights out-game over!
Bottom Line Take Aways
No American flags. No mention of America. Open borders. Killing babies even after they are born. Medicare for all, no private insurance. Raise taxes to the rafters. Socialism. Oh yeah, transgender women, (born as biological males), are to receive free abortions-boggles the mind. The deep state, the media, the left wing lunatics and the Democrats are imploding and panicking. Their party is over. Things will ramp up last quarter of this year and into 2020 as the deep-state de-class gains momentum, mark my words.
So, in a nutshell, there you have it. The Democrat party of JFK is dead and gone. And so now with these debates behind us and another 16 months of more insanity, our Democrat neighbors, many of them, will be voting for Trump. And according to recent surveys, 18% of the black community supported Trump in 2016 with 36%-39% supporting President Trump today. I agree with the President. It’s lights out, game over. Trump was the winner of these debates.
Action
All that being said, get out and vote. Get other Republicans registered and get them to vote. Let’s get busy on the swing states, the battleground states. The Democrats, independents, blacks and Hispanics are already coming aboard. In my opinion, voter fraud and election theft aside, Trump wins the electoral college and popular vote in a historic landslide. Focus. Get busy. This election will determine whether America has the chance to be resurrected or end up in the dustbin of history. Fight for what’s right as though your life depends on it. Why? because it does. Know your enemies well.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Michael Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Michael Chambers2019-06-30 06:25:102019-06-30 06:35:48Trump 2020 Landslide
For those still feeling the Bern, I’ve some bad news: Bernie Sanders will never be president. This is first and foremost because he’ll never, ever be the Democrat nominee. The man who never really was yesterday’s candidate (except in Vermont) is nonetheless yesterday’s news.
While I wrote about this prior to Thursday’s Star Wars bar scene (a.k.a. the Democratic Debate), that no one is talking about Sanders after that event tells the tale. His case is a curious one, too.
When Sanders crashed the 2016 Democrat primaries, he seemed a breath of fresh Green Mountain State air up against Mrs. Establishment. Sure, he had no charisma, but, hey, what are we talking about here? His opponent was Ice Maiden Hillary.
Moreover, Sanders’ message’s time had come. He demonstrated that open socialism (as opposed to the Democrats’ erstwhile closeted variety) now sells. He was a bit like Donald Trump, who captured the GOP nomination partially because on immigration he was willing to go where no modern Republican had gone before. The senator was the first American Fabian in the field.
But having seen this, two years later Democrat hopefuls essentially quoted 19th-century Brit Sir William Harcourt and declared, “We’re all socialists now.” So why would the Democrat Party, which hates old white males almost as much as dead white males, need Sanders?
From their panoply of panderers they can choose a woman. They can choose a minority. They can choose a minority woman. They can choose a woman who claimed to be a minority woman; a man who claims to have a husband; a minority man who claimed to be an ancient Greek gladiator; or a blonde, two-brain-cell-wonder woman who’ll claim to be anything you want. Who could ask for anything less?
Yet Sanders is less. More wizened than wise, gray but not gay, more white than woke, he’s now reaching for others’ radicalism. For all his manifold flaws, his message had traditionally been more economic than racial, but now he has embraced the idea of reparations for slaves who don’t exist. He supports free healthcare for aliens who’ve broken into our country. And while he partied in a Soviet Union that might lock men masquerading as women up, earlier this year he hung a “transgender” flag at his office.
So what does Sanders have to recommend him? The voice in the wilderness has become the toothless lion among the wild things. Bernie is now the crazy old uncle at the table, a walking, talking anachronism trying to seem hip by copying the young.
Sanders’ next major problem concerns decrepitude vs. pulchritude: He’s the antithesis of what in 2011 I called “that presidential look.” Like it or not, many people vote on superficial bases, and being unattractive will likely cost you enough votes to turn an otherwise winnable election. Just consider: When was the last time a white-haired man, a bald man or one sporting glasses won a presidential contest?
Answer: Prior to the television age.
Of course, Sanders is white-haired, bald and bespectacled. When President Jimmy Carter tried to make Ronald Reagan’s age an issue during the 1980 election and asked him, “Ronnie, how come you look younger every day I see a new picture of you riding on horseback?” Reagan replied, “Jimmy, that’s easy. I just keep riding older horses.”
Well, there’s not a horse around that could make Sanders look good — not since the old gray mare who ain’t what she used to be in 2016, anyway.
Oh, note, Reagan was 68 in 1980. Sanders will be 79 at election time 2020.
The senator’s last major deficit is that, to quote what commentator Pat Buchanan quipped about Bob Dole, “he’s like Richard Nixon — without the charm.” Sanders’ personality never really seems to thaw from the Vermont winters, as he exudes all the warmth of a 50s-era Soviet commissar. And in politics, charisma is king.
Add to this Democrats’ governance by prejudice — they don’t like white men, the aged or Jews — and, hey, it’s Dead End at Bernie’s. Similar to the ’89 film that characterization is patterned after, some of Sanders’ underlings may know he’s dead, but they have reasons to pretend otherwise.
Of course, the old white male can still go back to Vermont and remain senator until he’s a dead white male. But if you’re still feeling the Bern, well, it’s probably something you ate.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2019-06-30 05:56:242019-06-30 06:02:49Dead End at Bernie’s: Sanders Will Never be President
In a recent hit single, “You Need to Calm Down,” Taylor Swift mocks people who stand firm in their beliefs about sexuality, asking that they stop their bigotry and “calm down.”
The music video, which went viral, depicts conservatives as ignorant hicks who reject gays and are driven by animus. They are ugly, dated, and lack basic hygiene. By contrast, the LGBT folks in the video are bright, happy, and boast perfectly coiffed hair.
Moreover, the angry hicks are a dwindling minority, while the upbeat LGBT folks are shown to be ascendant—on the right side of history, you might say.
Despite these crass portrayals, which only confirm the left’s worst prejudices, a new survey released Monday suggests that young people are not actually falling in line with the LGBT movement as the common narrative suggests. In fact, they’re increasingly uncomfortable with it.
According to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report, conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of LGBT advocacy group GLAAD, the number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable with LGBT people in various situations slipped from 53% in 2017 down to 45% in 2018. And the 53% figure is down from 63% in 2016.
The survey asked men and women of various age brackets whether they are uncomfortable with the following:
Learning a family member is LGBT.
Having your child placed in class with an LGBT teacher.
Learning your doctor is LGBT.
Learning your child had a LGBT history lesson in school.
The largest drop in “acceptance” appears to be among the youngest age bracket.
In 2018, 36% of young people said they were uncomfortable learning a family member was LGBT, compared with 29% in 2017. Likewise, 34% were uncomfortable learning their doctor was LGBT vs. only 27% a year earlier.
In addition, 39% said they would be uncomfortable learning their child had a school lesson on LGBT history vs. 27% two years prior.
It appears young women have dropped the most in their comfortability with LGBT people. In 2017, 64% were comfortable compared to 52% in 2018.
Also of note, in 2017, people ages 72 and up were the most uncomfortable learning a child had an LGBT lesson in school.
John Gerzema, CEO of The Harris Poll, expressed concern over these numbers to USA TODAY: “We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant. These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.”
USA Today reported that when Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, looked closer, she discovered the younger age bracket actually interacted more with LBGT people, “particularly individuals who are non-binary and don’t identify simply as lesbian or gay.”
She blamed their lower comfort level on “a newness that takes time for people to understand.”
Both Gerzema and Ellis blamed the lack of tolerance on the Trump administration’s policy efforts regarding transgender people in the military and religious liberty issues.
But this makes no sense. If politics is really downstream from culture, and there is more equality in America than ever before, wouldn’t the culture reflect and accept that notion of being more tolerant?
A better way to understand the survey results might be to look at how pushy, even aggressive, the LGBT movement has been in ensuring its rights supersede the rights of others.
Whether it’s lawsuits for “bathroom rights” or lawsuits against religious people who can’t in good conscience bake a certain cake, the LGBT community is not advocating “equal rights” but supreme rights that marginalize everyone else’s.
This aggressive push for LGBT “equality” may actually be backfiring, causing even young people to feel discomfort and alienation.
At first glance, Swift’s song might seem to align with this study, since she too is decrying society’s rejection of LGBT people. But what she ignores, just like Ellis, is that people are uncomfortable for a reason that is likely of the LGBT movement’s own making.
This kind of aggressive, entitled behavior is difficult to acquiesce to, especially when it infringes upon the rights of others who would rather not participate.
Instead of hoping people would become more “comfortable” around the LGBT community, it may be worthwhile for GLAAD and other groups to consider the effect their campaign is having on other people. Maybe they’re the ones that “need to calm down.”
Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: @russell_nm.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-06-29 06:45:282019-06-30 07:12:24LGBT Activists Could Be to Blame for Falling LGBT Acceptance
When Democrats were putting together their first two debates, it probably didn’t occur to anyone that they could bomb both. But in a span of 24 hours, the party desperate to take down Donald Trump just proved that Democrats can put 20 options on the stage — and there still isn’t a sane one in the bunch.
The analysis from Round Two ranged from “space cadets” to “freak show” — and that was from the mainstream press! The night was so surreal that the consensus winner, if you asked most talking heads, is a woman who believes prostitution is a worthwhile career, the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote, and killing newborn children is “a personal choice.” Those were tame positions compared to some of the field, Dan Gainor points out, in his column of “what the heck?” moments.
After Wednesday, when the Democrats’ highlights included lobbying for taxpayer-funded abortions for men and abolishing private health care, the other 10 candidates had nowhere to go but up. Instead, the conversation was so outlandish that the party is actually losing more voters than it’s gained. One Washington Post reporter tweeted that when the Democrats all raised their hand to support free health care for illegal immigrants, a woman next to her said, “I don’t think I’m a Democrat anymore.”
And she can’t be the only one. With the party light years to the Left of any reasonable American, more people are starting to wonder, is 2020 even a contest? “Just twelve years ago, Democratic candidates for president competed with each other on how tough and realistic they could be on illegal immigration. The leading candidates for president advertised not just their opposition to same-sex marriage but also their opposition to drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants. Dennis Kucinich quoted from the Bible,” NRO’s Michael Dougherty marveled. “Over the last two nights, we saw a completely different Democratic party.”
Even Joe Biden, who was supposed to be the grown-up in the room, still hasn’t recovered from his 40-plus year reversal on the Hyde Amendment, his sprint to the Left on climate change, and his inability to stand by his “decent guy” assessment of Mike Pence. His night was a disaster, and he seemed to know it — even imposing his own time limit when he stopped thinking coherently. In one of the funnier moments of the night (not for his campaign manager, I’m sure), the former vice president was asked what “first issue” he would tackle in office. “The first thing I would do is make sure that we defeat Donald Trump, period.” “One would presume if he took office,” Gainor jabbed, “he would have beaten Trump. But that concept was a fantasy by the end of the debate and I’m betting even Biden knew it. Watching him was like watching the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.”
When the candidates weren’t lobbying to turn our borders into welcome mats, people like Mayor Pete Buttigieg were busy bashing the faith they claim to espouse: Christianity. “We have got to talk about one other thing because the Republican Party likes to cloak itself in the language of religion. Now our party doesn’t talk about that as much largely for a very good reason which was we are committed to the separation of church… But we should call out hypocrisy when we see it in for a party that associates itself with Christianity…”
If there was a real stand out from Thursday night, it was probably the Democratic platform, which spelled out most of this radicalism in 2016. A lot of Americans make the mistake that those documents hammered out at the party conventions don’t mean anything. But the platform is an anchor that helps tether the nominees to the core conservative principles of their party — in the Democrats’ case, things like taxpayer-funded abortion and animosity toward Israel.
Not too long ago, Lee Payne from Stephen Austin University combed through all of the parties’ platforms from 1980 until 2004. “He identified every ‘direct promise’ in those platform — pledges he thought amounted to concrete policy positions — and then compared those promises with all of the votes taken on either the House or Senate floor… What Payne found might stun some cynics: In 25 years, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress voted in accordance with their platforms 82 percent of the time.”
Platforms matter. That’s why the FRC Action team worked so hard three years ago to ensure that the document ratified in Cleveland was just as strong — if not more so — than 2012’s. Against all odds (and even more Establishment money), a coalition of pro-family groups led by FRC Action beat back the attacks on our values and emerged with a document clearer and more compelling than any in party history on life, marriage, and religious liberty. Because in the end, that’s what shapes the legacy. The differences between the two parties’ documents couldn’t be starker — just like the choice in 2020 is turning out to be.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-06-29 06:02:412019-06-29 06:02:41Left in a Lurch at Dem Shock-fest
The college debt “crisis” is a moral question, but it is the opposite of what Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and most of the Democratic presidential field are claiming.
An individual forgiving a debt they voluntarily entered into with a friend or family is noble and Christian and laudable. This sort of debt forgiveness happens routinely. I’ve done it. I’ve had it done.
Government eliminating debt is immoral. Here’s why.
If I loan someone money, and for whatever reason I choose to forgive that debt, that is my right and it is supported in the Bible. It is certainly part of American tradition, and actually may be far broader than that. It is a good and noble act, if I judge it is not enabling bad behavior. It is my choice because it is both my money and I voluntarily made the loan to the person.
But that is not at all what is being contemplated in this debate over forgiveness of student debt by Democratic politicians. First, of course, there is the need to label it a “crisis.” That is always step one for the next terrible government intervention idea.
What causes the confusion, however, is that the language is misleading when politicians say “we” should forgive this huge student debt issue. If they meant themselves as individuals, then terrific. But they most certainly do not. In truth, they intend to benefit and perhaps profit off this, not sacrifice.
Of course the concept is alluring if you are a college student with a lot of debt and know very little of the real world. Most all of us have debt and at times struggle with it. Who would not like their debt wiped out?
But when the “we” is the government, it means that the government will forcibly take one person’s money, to pay off the debt of another person. This is egregious behavior. The person whose money is being taken did not make the loan, consent to the loan, or necessarily even think the loan was a good idea.
The students and their parents voluntarily entered into those debts in return for the college degrees they obtained. They signed on the bottom line to take money to pay for something of value to them, and promised to pay it back. They knew at each step the cost they were incurring.
They were then loaned the money — with the promise they would pay it back — obtained the thing of value with that money, and now they and some politicians want Americans unrelated to the decision to take out the loan and getting value from the product to pay off the debt…while the students keep the thing of value.
This is egregious. But all the media will ever do is interview students with high debt loads and low-paying jobs. That paints a distorted picture, which of course is what it is intended to do.
I have sons who are plumbers. These young men chose not to go to college and take on debt. They work very hard, often in the Florida heat, and they actually make pretty decent money. They have no debt. I have another son working up the management ranks at Publix grocery stores, and he works long and odd hours. And another son who went to college and has nearly paid off his debt, again with a lot of hard work and now runs his own company — as one of my plumber sons does.
They have friends who are working to get nursing degrees and law enforcement training without taking on debt.
Now the politicians looking to make political hay on college debt forgiveness need to explain how it is moral that these people, and the millions like them, should be forced to pay off the debts of those who voluntarily went to college, and voluntarily took on the debt and now have a degree.
They need to explain the morality that nurses, police, firefighters, plumbers, electricians, A/C repairers, roadworkers, carpenters, roofers, block-layers, secretaries, etc. should be forced to pay off strangers’ college debts that they have no association with.
They need to explain how it is moral to force all who went to college ahead of this current crop, who all either paid off their loans or are getting close, to be forced to also pay off the loans of someone else. My wife and I paid off our loans. Sure the debts were smaller, as were the incomes. But it took a few years — while both my wife and I worked nearly full-time during college to keep them low.
If individuals want to forgive loans, that is their right and it is laudable. If banks and creditors want to, that is their right and their choice. But for the government to step in and do it — meaning all working Americans have to chip in — then we have a very different but clear-cut moral issue.
The rest of the country knows it as the 2020 election. To the leaders at Google, it’s the “Trump situation.” And based on new undercover video, they’ll do anything to prevent this president’s history from repeating.
Americans knew there was a censorship problem at places like Google and Pinterest. Now, thanks to James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, they see just how bad it is. Turns out, platforms like this search engine aren’t in the browsing business — they’re in the political business. And not as an unbiased observer. In the footage released Monday, Jen Gennai, head of Google’s Responsible Innovation team, has been innovative all right — especially when it comes to trying to alter the president’s reelection chances.
“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google,” Gennai was caught saying on tape. “And I love her, but she’s very misguided. That will not make it better, it will make it worse, because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation.” And according to the footage, those resources have been hard at work since 2016 “to make sure that we are ready for 2020.”
To conservatives like Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), the surprise is not that companies like Google are trying to interfere with the election. The surprise is that they’re being so candid about it. There’s plenty of evidence from three years ago, he told me on “Washington Watch” that the search engine had rigged their algorithms to favor Hillary Clinton results over Donald Trump’s. But here’s the scary thing, he said. “More and more voters, especially undecided voters, get their news from Google search right? So this platform with its monopoly power has the ability to swing undecided voter could potentially swing an election… [T]his is something that we should all be concerned about.”
It’s time to take seriously what liberals in Big Tech are doing, he insisted — “let alone what they’re doing that we don’t know about.” After all, “we’re talking about democracy. I mean, “You’ve got Google executives and Google employees saying, ‘We want to manipulate the information that goes to voters, so that they will vote the way that we Google want them to vote. That’s not democracy. That’s not the rule of the people. That’s rule by this multinational corporation.”
If people were unconvinced about these leaders’ motivations before, Project Veritas is making believers out of more every day. This morning, most of us woke up to the headlines that one leaked Google document compared conservatives like Ben Shapiro, PragerU, and others to “Nazis using dog whistles.” And just as O’Keefe’s post was approaching a million views, guess what? YouTube, which happens to be owned by Google, pulled it.
Here’s the thing, Senator Hawley told me. Google is a private company, and it can do what it wants. But it certainly shouldn’t be getting special deals and immunity from the federal government if they’re going to try to influence the outcome of an election or silence conservatives. Under his new bill, the Internet Censorship Act, major tech platforms would have to start being politically neutral toward what content they allow or disallow. If they want to keep operating under this unique status, they should have to submit to an audit that proves they aren’t discriminating against conservatives or the conservative viewpoint.
“And if Google doesn’t want to do that because they’re private company and they want to be out there as a progressive Left-wing company, that’s fine. But then they shouldn’t [get this special status from the] government…” And it’s not just Google, Senator Hawley explains. It’s Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and others too. Right now, he points out, “If Twitter takes away your account or Facebook takes down your post because they don’t like that it’s pro-life, there’s currently nothing you could do to Facebook or to Twitter. They have immunity from liability.” The traditional media, on the other hand, doesn’t. “Whether it’s television or newspapers or even online journalists… if they print stuff that’s not true, if they slander you, if they discriminate against you, you can sue them [to hold them] accountable.”
Every platform should be playing by the same rules. Either Google and the rest of Big Tech need to embrace the First Amendment and treat people fairly or they can wave goodbye to their cozy government deals.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-06-28 10:39:232019-06-28 10:42:48PODCAST: Techs and Balances
The large field of Democrats who are vying for their party’s nomination to run against President Trump has not started out well. Two debates were held in Miami, FL. After the second debate the DNC Headquarters sent out a survey asking “Which Democratic candidates did you most enjoy hearing from on the debate stage?” Enjoy hearing from? Is this a talent contest or a race for the presidency?
After listening to the Democrats running it has become clear as Senator Kamala Harris said, “America does not want to witness a food fight, they want to know how we’re going to put food on their table.” The question is who’s putting that food on the table, the working fathers and mothers of America or the federal government.
Trump wins both Democratic Party Debates
President Trump used Twitter to respond to each debate. Trump characterized the first debate as “boring.” The second debate Trump tweeted, “All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!”
Here is a short list of why the Democratic candidates, and their party, is out of touch with the American people:
They hate President Trump. Senator Bernie Sanders said during the second debate, “You asked before, what is the greatest national security threat to the United States, it’s Donald Trump.” No matter what President Trump does, it is wrong, hateful, bigoted or just plain evil.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. President Trump has put more people to work, and taken more people off of government welfare, so that families can “put food on their table.” As former President Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.”
Free stuff. The Democratic candidates love the word free. Free is not freedom. Free means some lose their ability to put food on their tables so others, i.e. illegal aliens, can have government benefits.
Tribalism. The Democrats focus on tribes (e.g. blacks, Hispanics, LGBT, illegal aliens) and not Americans or America. They try to speak Spanish in order to show their compassion for minorities and not the majority.
Pandering. The Democrats face a tough race and therefore pander for votes. Bernie Sanders panders to the young voter by promising to pay off all student debt. But by doing so he ignores the 2/3rds that have no college degree. It’s this 2/3rds that will pay off the debt of the 1/3 who get a degree.
Taxes and big government. The only way to pay for all of the various proposals made during the debates is to raise taxes. The mantra is tax the rich to help the poor. Venezuela and Cuba are examples of how taxation trickles down to the poor very quickly as the rich become poorer and the poor become poorer.
Equality for me but not for thee. Equality is a loaded word. For Democrats equality means a variety of ideals: equal pay for all (e.g. minimum wage), equal rights (for some more than others) and equal distribution of wealth (taking wealth from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful). It does not mean equal justice under the law.
Diversity. Diversity is the second most loaded word used by Democrats. Diversity means you cannot criticize anyone who is different than you. If you are white you cannot criticize someone born with a differ skin tone. In many cases, if you are a person with a different skin tone and you support Trump you are, by definition, a racist.
The Big Lies. Democrats tell big lies like: no one is here illegally, the world will end in 10 or 12 years due to climate change, killing a baby born alive is moral, Americans must pay for government funded abortion for transgender men and finally the biggest whopper, more government is necessary to fix just about anything and everything.
Control. Politics is not about which party you belong to. Politics is all about control. Politicians want control, politicians want to control their constituents and politicians want others to become dependent upon them. The more dependent one is to a politician, the better for the politician. It’s call modern day slavery.
Marxism and the Democratic Debates
Andrew Yang when asked to defend his proposal to pay $1,000 a month, to every American, from the federal government, said, “It’s difficult to do if you have companies like Amazon, trillion-dollar companies, paying zero in taxes.”
Karl Marx wrote, “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” Will Amazon be the last company to ship us (free if your a member of Amazon Prime) the rope to collectively hang ourselves?
It appears the Democratic Party’s candidates, to one extent or another, want to hang every capitalist (i.e. working American) in our nation.
As Leon Trotsky wrote: “The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” Democrats want to control/regulate the means of food production (see Green New Deal). Also, see food rationing in Communist Cuba.
Why Trump Won Both Debates!
As President Trump said during his inaugural address:
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another – but transferring it from Washington DC and giving it back to you the people.
For too long a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. While they have celebrated there has been little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you. It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America today.
This is your day.
This is your celebration.
And this – the United States of America – is your country.
Trump noted, “What truly matters is not what party controls our government but that this government is controlled by the people.”
Give the American people control of their lives and good things happen. Give the American people jobs and good things happen. Give the American people the freedom to speak and good things happen. Give the American people their God given Constitutional rights and good things happen.
Power to the people is winning! Are you tired of winning?
Here are two interesting political satire videos by Carpe Donktum on the debates.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-06-28 05:00:172019-06-29 07:18:08And the Clear Winner of the first two Democratic Party Debates is — Donald J. Trump
The Supreme Court’s Thursday decision relating to the 2020 census split a baby that should have remained whole.
The question at hand was whether the Trump administration could add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. The court found that adding such a question would not violate the Constitution, but that the administration’s justification for doing so—enforcing the Voting Rights Act—may have been “contrived.”
It sent the case back to the lower court for further findings.
That means the secretary of the Commerce Department, which controls the census, gets to fight another day and can justify its decision another way.
The Trump administration should not give up, but instead should fight to justify including the question before time runs out and the Census Bureau has to print out the census forms.
On the whole, we agree with Justice Clarence Thomas’ partial dissent that “our only role in this case is to decide whether the secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative. That ought to end our inquiry.”
However, that is not what happened, and so the administration must act fast. Failure to do so would be a victory for a very well-organized left and for the administrative state.
This decision should have been uncontroversial and downright boring. Indeed, this issue should have never come to the court in the first place.
It was only there because leftist groups that have controlled the census for decades have spent two years throwing the mother of all tantrums. One can only conclude that they don’t want accurate data on the number of noncitizens in the country.
Conservatives should pay heed and recognize that if the census is this important to liberals, it is probably of some value to conservatives, too.
They should follow this 2020 census effort by eliminating all race categories from the 2030 census, as these constitute the warp and woof of the identity politics ideology that these advocacy groups push.
These challengers—including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Asian Americans Advancing Justice—have pursued a full-court press, oratorically and legally, since the Trump administration announced two years ago it wanted the citizenship question reinstated on the 2020 census for the first time since 1950.
(Yes, reinstated. The question previously appeared on census forms dating back to 1820, at the recommendation of President Thomas Jefferson.)
The left’s unfair, inflammatory rhetoric has been over the top.
“The American people will not tolerate the Trump administration exploiting the census in order to carry out their racist and xenophobic policies,” claimed Michael Brune of the Sierra Club.
“This egregious citizenship question is a political effort to weaponize the census to redefine American democracy,” said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference Education Fund.
On the legal front, these groups first filed a lawsuit against the administration in New York City, which culminated in the January decision by a federal judge in Manhattan (an Obama appointee) that the administration had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner.
In a similar case, a second Obama appointee in San Francisco held that asking a citizenship question is “unconstitutional.”
It was these cases that came before the Supreme Court.
The leftist organizations didn’t stop there. They kept throwing things against the wall hoping something would stick.
In early June, they released information in a document prepared years ago by a deceased Republican redistricting expert. The document was found by his estranged daughter among his possessions and forwarded to the challengers.
The so-called smoking gun document showed that if citizen population was used to draw electoral maps in Texas, rather than total population, Republicans and non-Hispanic whites might benefit—hardly earth-shattering news.
Indeed, the truth is that in other states, this would also benefit Hispanics—a large umbrella group that covers Americans of many origins, many of whom vote for Democrats.
In a move that evokes the left’s desperation during the Kavanaugh hearings, liberals trotted out the information, claiming—without any proof whatsoever—that the Justice and Commerce departments had “relied” on this information in making the decision to reinstate the citizenship question.
The administration’s lawyers vigorously denied this unsupported and unproven claim, which activists sent to the Supreme Court late in the game, well after oral arguments, as it was preparing to issue its decision.
Did these strategies play a role in the court’s decision? It’s hard to say. If so, then the justices who remanded the decision to the lower court gave in to an organized mob.
But let us all put aside the last-minute theatrics and the legal sleight of hand, and get right down to the point of this entire controversy.
My friend Jim Geraghty hits the nail on the head when he writes in National Review that many leftists want to live in a borderless world where the nation-state just withers away.
The problem is that democracy, the rule of law, and the very concept of human rights are territorially constrained and protected.
Natural rights may be universal, but the laws that protect these rights, and the cultures that underwrite these laws, are very much local to the nation.
Groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, La Raza (now known as UnidosUS), and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials have for decades used the census to break up and divide Americans into racial and ethnic identity groups—a triumph for them and for identity politics, but a disaster for America’s sense of national cohesion.
These groups are examples of what the social scientist Peter Skerry calls “elite network insiders.”
These groups have “weak community ties,” but they win policy fights because they partake in “a process of specialization and professionalization by which politics become more and more an insiders’ game.”
The racial identities that they’ve intimidated the Census Bureau into adopting are “highly useful to elite-network insiders who are in need of some cogent category that subsumes the disparate population they aspire to represent.” But such categories do no good to the people themselves, or to the nation.
One of the platforms for these organizations is the Census Bureau’s National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, where many have a seat.
As I wrote in Quillette a few months ago, few Americans have heard of this committee, but, “along with bureaucrats in other agencies, and various non-governmental ‘stakeholder’ groups on the left, the [committee] has for decades controlled the policy by which demographic data—the seedbed of identity politics—is collected and interpreted.”
On June 14, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to re-evaluate all national advisory committees and eliminate at least a third of them. The census committee, which fought the citizenship question so hard, should be one of the first to go.
So, what should happen now?
The Commerce Department should fight for the citizenship question by providing a new explanation.
The administration should then rescind the 1977 Office of Management and Budget directive that first artificially created pan-ethnic identity groups, such as “Hispanics,” as well as the 1997 revision of that directive.
It’s time we moved back to a culture and society where we consider all Americans to be one people—e pluribus unum (out of many, one)—that are not divided by their skin color or ethnic or family background.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-06-27 17:35:482019-06-29 07:59:06Trump Should Act Quickly to Secure 2020 Census Question in Light of Court Ruling
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has been quieter than usual since its blockbuster scandal rocked the liberal world. Now the group is slowly coming out of hiding, and staffers like Nancy Abudu are trying desperately to make up for lost time. If her latest attack against Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill is any indication, nothing at the Poverty Palace has changed. Including, the state would tell you, its approach to the facts.
Now that it’s “hate lists” are completely discredited, SPLC is apparently venturing out in a new area: voting rights. Last month, the Montgomery headquarters announced that it was creating a Voting Rights Legal Team — with about the same level of integrity Americans have come to expect from an organization knee-deep in systematic racism and bigotry.
For their first hit job, Abudu didn’t stray far from home. The deputy director of SPLC’s project took aim at the organization’s state for supposed voter suppression — a charge John Merrill would have a good laugh at if he weren’t so annoyed. “You know,” he told our listeners on “Washington Watch,” “they’re entitled to their own opinion, but they’re not entitled to their own facts.” And those facts tell a far different story than what Abudu suggested in a wildly inaccurate op-ed in the Montgomery Advertiser.
To anyone paying attention in Alabama, the suggestion that state leaders are intentionally suppressing voter registration is almost too ridiculous to repeat. For four years, five months, and two days, Merrill said, “we’ve made a concerted effort… to ensure that each and every eligible U.S. citizen as a resident of Alabama is registered to vote [and] has a photo ID.” They’ve traveled to all 67 counties each year, he explained. They go to festivals, events, and other activities to promote voter registration. They even created a mobile application so that Alabamians can register to vote on the computer or on their phones. Then, of course, there’s the Board of Registrar’s Office. “It’s open each and every day. The courthouse is open in every county in the state, and we ensure that we provide a photo ID or the opportunity to register to vote for any citizen that wishes to register [who] is qualified to do.”
The idea that his staff or anyone in the state is actively trying to turn people away from their civic duty is preposterous. In fact, Merrill explains, Alabama has been such a success story that officials have been invited to Congress to testify twice about the great work they’re doing. And why not? Since his time in office, the state’s registered a whopping 1,278,824 new voters. “We now have a state record, 3,491,599 registered voters in Alabama. Those numbers are unprecedented and unparalleled in the history of our state,” Merrill says proudly. But there’s more. “[W]hen you compare our per capita to every other state in the union, we surpass every other state in the union when it comes to voter registration and photo.”
If SPLC is insinuating that Alabama is intentionally targeting minorities, they’ll have a tough time proving it. Ninety-six percent of all eligible African-Americans in the state of Alabama are registered to vote. If Morris Dees’s old group is being honest, what SPLC is most upset about is that Merrill and his team have cracked down on the rampant fraud plaguing Alabama. While Democrats benefit from a slow and duplicative system, the 53rd secretary of state in Alabama says: not on my watch. “You also need to know that we removed more than 780,000 people from the voter rolls because those people have moved away, they passed away, or they’ve been put away, and whenever that happens, they need to come off the voter rolls.”
Even so, Alabama still broke voting records in the state for everything from the presidential primary in 2016 to the general election and the midterms in 2018. “Voter registration is important,” he agreed, “but voter participation is better.” Fortunately for his state, there’s both. “I am proud to ensure that in Alabama, we make it easy to vote and hard to cheat.” That’s clearly disappointing to SPLC!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-06-25 06:31:162019-06-25 06:32:02PODCAST: SPLC — Coming Soon to a Voting Booth Near You
Bernie Sanders is a liar–Socialism is not love and compassion it is just the opposite of that—Socialism is corruption, abuse and fraud. Yet Socialism has become a legitimate philosophy in America, Alas! We have dozens Democrat-Socialists candidates for the U.S. presidency. Do they know what Socialism is really about? No, they don’t. As a result, their words are often deceptive, misleading, and confusing. Bernie Sanders doesn’t know a real Socialism is also or pretends that he doesn’t know it. He is a Trojan Horse, propagandist, who is fooling and deceiving you for decades. Just wait for AG William G. Barr completing his investigation of the investigators, you will be shocked by a massive fraud, deceit, distortion, and lies perpetrated by the leadership of the Democrat Party during the last decades…
To really understand Socialism, you must have lived through it. I am a survivor of Soviet socialism and I know what it truly means. I came to America to enjoy the individual liberty, freedoms and opportunities the country offers to humanity. I love this country with all my heart and I am concerned about the state of America’s national security, especially during this dangerous time for our country. This is the reason I want to share my personal experiences living under a socio-economic system called Socialism and expose the frequent lies, deception, and misrepresentations of what the term really means.
Marxism, Socialism, and Communism
For most Americans Socialism is an abstract notion—something they have never experienced. Not coincidentally, Americans wonder about the difference between Socialism and Communism, and it is very hard for them to find the truth on the internet or from the Academia. For those of us raised under the Communist system in the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism was a mandatory subject in all universities. Most Russian émigrés know the subject well, they have studied Marxism at least for two years. I have studied Marxism for all four years at law school and I loved it, because I lived behind the Iron Curtin and Marxism was the only information available from the West…
I was surprised by the various explanations of Marxist theory offered by American authors. Some of them were pure propaganda. One misleading presentation on Marxist theory and its comparison of Lenin with President Reagan stunned me the most. Other strange statements I read included such comments as, “Socialism is liberal…Communism is conservative.” This was news for me. We cannot compare liberals of the 19th century with leftists of the 21st century, just as we cannot compare Democrat President Harry Truman with Democrat President Barack Obama. Over the past sixty years, there has been a drastic transformation within the Democrat Party and this transformation itself requires a separate discussion.
Because there is an alarming need for real knowledge, I will present my view on Marxism to Americans who hunger for the truth. There is a spectacular ignorance pertaining Socialism in America–people do not understand basic civics. Socialism is a system of a big, centralized government within a mafia-like police state, which runs all means of production, and assumes absolute control of the people, and all methods of productivity. There are no freedoms, no personal liberty, nor First Amendment rights under Socialism. I can testify that at any courts, because I lived half of my life under real Socialism and knowing Marxism pretty well, I’d like to introduce my view on the subject.
The publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 provided a road map for the period’s leftist political activists and their comrades in Europe. Marx was the primary author of the Manifesto, while Engels’ exact contributions are unknown. They offered their views on how capitalism would eventually be replaced by socialism and then give way to communism, the purest form of socialism. Nevertheless, any potential details about what communism would look like were missing. I would say the Manifesto was a radical left-wing political program of the mid-19th century with some historical and social information not always honestly presented. Moreover—Manifesto has declared a war to Western civilization, which is still going on in the 21st century today…
Creating the Theory of Socialism and Communism as a means of rooting out the exploitation of man by man, Marx and Engels purposely divided it into two phases: the first phase was Socialism and the second –- Communism. They identified in detail the tasks, agendas, and ways to achieve them in their Theory, as follows.
First – the tasks and agenda—overthrowing the capitalist economic system and establishing Socialism as a basis for the creation of a classless Communist society in the future.
Second – how to fulfill the tasks and agenda—through World Revolution.
Third – the World Revolution would occur under the leadership of the proletariat. “Proletariat of the world unite!” was their slogan.
Fourth – Marxist Theory can be applied only in industrially developed European countries…
The first task and the agenda, which I call the first Marxist postulate is clear—the overthrow of the existing Capitalist economic system and the creation of a new Socialist economic system under which all means of production would belonged to the government. As a survivor of Soviet Socialism, I can tell you how this was brought about — through the forcible confiscation and nationalization of all private property in the country.
Private Property is the main target of Marxism
The simple truth is that private property is a cornerstone of our democracy and our American economic system, as it’s declared by our Founding Fathers. “Capitalism is not a system of government, it is the practice and philosophy of transforming resources into capital goods for the purpose of producing consumer products.” Michael Barone is right talking about American economic system: “we have been a property-holders’ democracy.” A very important element of the Theory is missing–neither Marx nor Engels, identified over what time span Socialism would mature into the evolved and perfect classless Communist society. That is the crux of the matter—a dark hole in the theory and not the only one…
The second postulate, how to achieve the task, is also clear—through World Revolution. It is a radical and categorical approach to the matter entailing unrest, chaos, violence, and killings. I am vehemently against such an approach because I know the tragedy that occurred in Russia. Marx’s statement that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle,” is simply not true. America’s Founding Fathers created a just and fair government and free country without any class struggle.
The third Marxist postulate is the leadership of the Proletariat. Class division is the wrong approach to the problem of leadership. And again, the example of America is the antithesis of the Marxist approach and suggests, to the contrary, that only competent, well-educated, and highly respected individuals — leaders who come from all walks of life with all kinds of talents — can provide a country true leadership, as was the case in America. It is individual personality and human qualities alike George Washington or Thomas Jefferson that bring a leader to the forefront of a movement, not his or her identification with a certain class.
The fourth postulate is perhaps the only logical and economically sustainable position, i.e. that “Marxist theory can be applied only to industrially develop European countries…. “
Ironically, despite not meeting the requirements of any of Marx’s four postulates, the first Socialist Revolution took power in Russia in 1917. And despite failing to meet Marxist requirements, and on the contrary by perverting all of them while at the same time using Marxist rhetoric to further his ends, Joseph Stalin created his own ideology and established a criminal syndicate, a totalitarian terror-machine called Soviet Socialism… For decades the expansionist ideology was corrupting, abusing, and defrauding people of the world and this is one of the main reasons I am renaming the term Soviet Socialism to Soviet Fascism…
A more comprehensive explanation of this complex and important subject will follow. I will offer you a suggestion and a series of articles to learn about Soviet Socialism in the 21st century.
To learn a real life under Soviet Socialism, please read my book Baltic Winds: Testimony of a Soviet Attorney, Xlibris, 2002. Pay attention especially to pp 167-168 to learn the term “Blat” and how a famous defense attorney buys meet and other food in the country under Socialism, where private property is liquidated… Reading the book, you actually can find some similarity with what you are seeing in America today…
Please, read in addition 1. Chapter 2 Marxism: Utopianism, a Fraud or Both? Socialist Lies, From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders, Xlibris, 2016
Replacing Property as a Source of Wealth Creation, by Michael Barone, Townhall.com July, 4, 2011
The Morality of Capitalism; What Your Professors Won’t Tell You by Tom G. Palmer.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Simona Pipkohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSimona Pipko2019-06-25 06:06:502019-06-25 06:07:28Soviet Socialism in the 21st century — Part 1
Lt Col (R) Saris Sangari is a retired US Army Colonel who saw extensive combat in the Middle East as a Special Operations Forces soldier and who, after retirement, continues to advise the fledgling Assyrian Christian Army in Iraq known as Dwekh Nawsha with his military expertise.
Topic – Iran: Hardliners vs Moderates on shooting down the drone!
Frank Vernuccio, editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, providing objective coverage of key issues facing the United States today. Frank is the co-host of the Vernuccio/Novak Report, nationally both on broadcast radio and the web at amfm247.com. FRANK also co-hosts of the “The American Political Zone,” Broadcast on cable in eastern Connecticut.
TOPIC..Illegal Alien Impact on 2020 Election!!
Mark Hancock CEO of Trail Life USA. Mark began his career founding a national advertising agency and running it for fifteen years. His conversion to Christ led him into ministry as a Youth and College Pastor, Associate Pastor, Homeless Ministry Director and Global Event Director for an international ministry, organizing events on five continents. He holds two Masters Degrees in the Mental Health Counseling field, having spent a number of years in private practice, and has taught at secular and Christian colleges.
TOPIC…National Guard Bans Trail Life USA Troop!!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Conservative Commandos Radio Showhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show2019-06-25 05:23:342019-06-25 05:23:34PODCAST: Iran: Hardliners vs Moderates! Illegal Alien Impact on 2020 Election! National Guard Bans Trail Life USA Troop!
Another brave insider has stepped forward to Project Veritas.
This time, our insider is from Google. The biggest tech company in the world.
In fact, there are nearly 65,000 “googles” on this search engine every second. And it’s very likely you’re probably contributing to this statistic.
Google has been universally regarded as a trustworthy search tool and source – but is that trust well-placed?
New undercover video, leaked documents, and insights from an insider reveal that Google appears to be using their size and status to affect the outcome of elections.
Our journalists spoke with Jen Gennai, the Head of Responsible Innovation and a 12-year Google employee. Here’s a snapshot of what she told them:
“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’ve rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”
“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”
You can watch Project Veritas’ explosive new video HERE.
This is the third video that Project Veritas has released featuring an insider from big tech. Our Google insider is incredibly courageous, and he’s risked his career to show you the truth.
If you’re on the inside of tech, media, education, unions, or government – you can become a Project Veritas insider by contacting us at VeritasTips@protonmail.com.
If you’re considering coming forward, but unsure about the repercussions, here is a quote from our Google insider that you may find inspiring:
“I mean, this is a behemoth, this is a Goliath, I am but a David trying to say that the emperor has no clothes. And being a small little ant I can be crushed, and I am aware of that. But, this is something that is bigger than me, this is something that needs to be said to the American public.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00O'Keefe Media Grouphttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngO'Keefe Media Group2019-06-24 13:06:272019-06-26 07:40:29BREAKING: Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent ‘Trump situation’ in 2020
A PolitiFact fact-check of President Trump’s campaign launch last week in Orlando that was run in newspapers nationwide went horribly, embarrassingly, laughably wrong on the one count in which they ruled Trump was “wrong.”
PolitiFact did their usual number after Trump’s speech, supposedly fact-checking the President. In it, there are assumptions made that highlight the normal bias.
But the only fact-checked statement these intrepid journalists ruled as “wrong” — they got totally wrong.
Here’s what PolitiFact wrote that Trump got wrong:
(We passed) “the biggest tax cut in history.” Wrong. Trump often repeats this point, but three tax cuts were larger. In inflation-corrected dollars, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 cut $321 billion per year. The Tax Relief Act of 2010 cut them by $210 billion per year. And the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 reduced taxes by $208 billion a year.
The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act cut taxes by $150 billion a year.
You, like me, might be shocked to find out that Obama signed much larger tax cuts during his administration. Twice! Seems like that would have been pretty big news — and pretty out of character. But a quick google of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 finds the details at Investopedia.
The truth? Neither was a tax cut.
They were both a continuation of the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire. So if they had expired and the tax rates reverted to their higher levels, it would have been a tax increase. But they did not. This supposed “tax cut” actually did nothing more than keep taxes at the exact same level as they were.
Maintaining tax rates at the same rate is definitionally not a tax cut. Unless, that is, you are simply trying to make the President look like he was wrong.
Further, this supposed “tax cut” that is the American Taxpayer Relief Act actually raised taxes.
ATRA’s passage prevented the expiration of most of the major tax cuts enacted between 2001 and 2010. It made permanent the tax savings included in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. ATRA extended through 2017 the tax cuts built into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. Along with these extended tax cuts, ATRA raised payroll taxes for many Americans and reversed cuts for the highest earners that had been passed with the support of the George W. Bush administration.
Well, what about The Tax Relief Act of 2010, which cut taxes by $210 billion per year as PolitiFact’s claims?
Nope. Same thing. According to Wikipedia, it extended the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for two years.
So this “tax cut” also merely kept the Bush tax cuts in place for two years. It did not cut taxes. In fact, this mere two-year reprieve of the taxes being increased is what led to the 2012 one above.
Both of them kept rates the same. They did not cut taxes.
The Reagan tax cuts might have been higher, it’s hard to find firm, inflation-adjusted numbers there. But the last line in PolitiFact has the most interesting twist.
Did the Trump tax cuts actually only cut $150 billion? I could not find that number and PolitiFact did not cite it or provide a link — which is pretty sloppy for a fact-checking outfit. I did, however, find plenty of much higher numbers by liberal outfits painting the picture of how irresponsible the tax cuts were.
One of those, the Tax Policy Center, said the tax cuts amounted to $275 billion — much more than expected. Of course, they were making the case then that the tax cuts were not paying for themselves as the GOP had promised, so the much higher number was convenient for that.
So it looks like on every, single element of their conclusion that Trump was wrong on the tax cuts, they were wrong.
But we should totally trust PolitiFact.
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2019-06-24 12:23:532019-06-24 12:27:21Fact-Checkers Of Trump’s Orlando Speech Show AOC-Level Ineptitude
Well, I should say a hit-job on white Americans; the Somalis there are pure as the driven snow.
But, did anyone expect anything other than a hit from the New York Times?
Anyone who raises any questions about how many migrants we should admit to America or asks what it will cost taxpayers, or any other sensible question is a racist, Islamophobic xenophobe especially if a reporter can link critics of uncontrolled migration to Donald J. Trump.
For the record, I don’t respond to requests from the likes of the NYT, the Washington Post, the LA Times etc. for an interview because no matter what you say, biased reporters will cherry-pick your words and paint you in the worst light as obviously reporter Alstead W. Herndon did here.
He went to St. Cloud with an agenda!
Herndon proves once again that Donald Trump is right about the media.
But, it isn’t all bad because a whole lot more people in America now know there is a big problem, a social upheaval going on in St. Cloud, and maybe they will think twice about putting out the ‘welcome’ mat to third world refugees.
Here is how reporter Astead W. Herndon begins his story.
In the first five paragraphs he has worked in all the vital words any good Leftist anti-Trump reporter needs to tell readers what they are to think about these ‘Islamophobes’ in Minnesota! (I’ve hi-lighted his buzz words in hot pink.)
‘These People Aren’t Coming From Norway’: Refugees in a Minnesota City Face a Backlash
As more Somali refugees arrive in St. Cloud, white anti-immigration activists have pressed an increasingly explicit anti-Muslim agenda.
ST. CLOUD, Minn. — John Palmer, a former university professor, has always had a cause. For decades he urged Minnesota officials to face the dangers of drunken driving and embrace seatbelts. Now he has a new goal: curbing the resettlement of Somali refugees in St. Cloud, after a few thousand moved into this small city where Mr. Palmer has lived for decades.
Every weekday, he sits in the same spot at Culver’s restaurant — the corner booth near the Kwik Trip — and begins his daily intake of news from xenophobic and conspiratorial sites, such as JihadWatch.org, and articles with titles like “Lifting the Veil on the ‘Islamophobia’ Hoax.” On Thursdays, Mr. Palmer hosts a group called Concerned Community Citizens, or C-Cubed, which he formed to pressure local officials over the Muslim refugees. Mr. Palmer said at a recent meeting he viewed them as innately less intelligent than the “typical” American citizen, as well as a threat.[BTW, if you don’t read Jihad Watch you should.—ed]
But for others, the changes have fueled talk about “white replacement,” a racist conspiracy theory tied to the declining birthrates of white Americans that has spread in far-right circles and online chat rooms and is now surfacing in some communities.
“The very word ‘Islamophobia’ is a false narrative,” Mr. Palmer, 70, said. “A phobia is an irrational fear.” Raising his voice, he added, “An irrational fear! There are many reasons we are not being irrational.”
In this predominantly white region of central Minnesota, the influx of Somalis, most of whom are Muslim, has spurred the sort of demographic and cultural shifts that President Trump and right-wing conservatives have stoked fears about for years. The resettlement has divided many politically active residents of St. Cloud, with some saying they welcome the migrants.
My point is that this reporter, in the run-up to 2020, wants to make it very clear that everyone who has a concern about a large increase in the number of migrants to a community (even when those ‘new Americans’ take jobs African-Americans need or might be ISIS lovers) is a Trump-supporting racist.
(See my post about the Pittsburgh terrorist bustand note that the black community there is a little nervous about the refugees flooding into their communities. Are they being racist and Islamophobic, Astead?)
For a laugh, you really need to see Herndon’s (thin) bio when he joined the NYT in 2018.
Here is one mention of an important story in his career. (BTW, Did he write the bio? I see a typo in it.)
And then there was the story where Astead spent a day trying to eat every food at a county fair, downing a three-layer chili parfait, deep-fried peanut butter and jelly, and bacon covered in s’mores.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-06-23 07:35:132019-06-23 07:35:13New York Times Writer does Hit-Job on Americans in St. Cloud, MN
On a flight right now returning from a five-day trip that I believe was orchestrated from above, I take this moment and reflect. I have been inspired by two patriots, two beautiful souls who were brought to me for a reason, for a purpose. This soon will be revealed, of this I am sure. Our paths have crossed by no accident. I am grateful and thankful. I believe there are no coincidences.
I believe that as George Washington was divinely inspired and protected to form America, it is my belief that Donald J. Trump is divinely inspired and protected to resurrect America. I believe the storm is upon us. It is my belief that this storm will challenge each and every one of us in ways that perhaps we have never been challenged before. Why? Because this is a battle between good and evil. Read through my articles and books and you will gain a greater understanding of what it is that I am talking about. This has just begun and will intensify as the years go by. These are defining moments in time. Once again, these are the times that try men’s souls.
Tragedy brings unity. As the remains of the twin towers in New York City were reduced to smoldering twisted steel and ash, innocent lives perished. People were injured, horrified, devastated and in shock with grief beyond words, as the loved ones left behind were left in a state of desperation and suffering beyond words. What did I see? People uniting. There were no divisions. There was not one delayed thought or consideration to help one another. We are instinctively good. We are one. We united. Tragedy brings unity. It mattered not, your political affiliation, race, religion and so on. I believe that people are instinctively and inherently good.
And so the storm that is now upon us is exposing the evil acts which are no longer hiding and lurking among us in the dark, in disguise. It is now hidden in plain sight. Know this evil well. Know it for what it is. The age of transparency is here. Truths are now being revealed and this has just begun. I believe civilization is at a crossroads with America in the cross-hairs. Yes, once again it is up to us. Freedom is up to us. With dignity, decency, common sense, and knowing the difference between right and wrong hanging in the balance, we must seek strength within. What will soon be revealed will be heart wrenching and most difficult to endure. Yet I believe many of us will unite with one heart and one mind while others will be cast away into the abyss of darkness. Surround yourself with like-minded people who understand the times in which we live. Expand these circles. Stay informed. Be prepared and pray for God’s mercy, wisdom, strength to endure, and for protection.
The election of Donald J. Trump is the miracle many had been praying for. I for one, wrote about this early on in 2015 in my book Misconceptions and Course Corrections, prior to the escalator event, stating that the most unlikely person in our hour of need will arrive to provide the leadership that America and the world so desperately needed to bring us out of the darkness and into the light. That time has arrived.
Donald Trump’s entire life led him to such a time as this. Pray for our President and for his family, for in my opinion, no Trump, no hope. I do believe that the days that are now upon us and the years to follow shall bring out the good in us once again. It’s time to bring ourselves up by the boot straps. I believe it’s time for us to raise our level of confront. I believe it’s time for us to focus, be confident, strong and support one another in spite of our often times, vast differences, for we are one. Stay the course, trust the plan. Someone once said “love is but a song we sing, fear is the way we die”. “Come on people now, smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another right now”. Choose love. I believe that with the grace of God, together we will save America.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Michael Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Michael Chambers2019-06-23 06:19:392019-06-23 06:24:24This Is What I Believe
